Clearly, because no non-elected dictator has ever caused harm...
I was speaking in the context of the present system, the so-called democratic republic.
Yes, you were speaking in that context. I was speaking as an anarchist.
However, every dictator causes harm with the tacit support of a sizable segment of the population.
That’s an amusing notion. Of course, since “sizable” is not defined, it’s a semantically-null statement. In other words, talking for the sake of talking, without saying anything...
I do not think that voting legitimizes the State (I don't recall saying that but perhaps I did), only that it creates the illusion of legitimacy that agents of the State use to justify their actions.
You’ve said repeatedly that voting legitimizes the State. You’ve tried to couch it in various other terms, but all your claims here boil down to that. If voting does not legitimize the State, then it cannot be support of the State (by definition), and cannot be wrongful as such.
Your claim, repeatedly, is that voting is wrong because it legitimizes the State’s actions, thereby making the voter a party to those actions, which are (far more often than not) evil. However, there is no magical reason why voting would legitimize the State. That is a claim of the State, not something which exists as natural law or somesuch. If you accept that claim, then you have accepted the system of the State and, since folks do vote, you have actually accepted the State as legitimate.
That position is not compatible with anarchy. The State is
not legitimate, and nothing can ever make it legitimate, including voting. If voting does not legitimize the State’s actions, then it does not cause the voter to bear responsibility for them.
Joe