I'm having trouble understanding it, could you perhaps just stay away from metaphors and explain your moral reasoning here?

Okay,

• "complaining about a person's vote" can mean two things: Either that I believe "they should have voted differently" or that I believe "they should not have voted at all.".

• Therefore to have the moral right to honestly complain about their vote, I must either believe "everyone should have voted differently" or I must believe "everyone should not have voted at all."

• Since I don't believe society would be better if nobody voted, then the only option I have if I want this moral right to complain is "they should have voted differently".

• And therefore it would be hypocrisy if I likewise hadn't myself gone to vote differently.

Now, the thing you're not getting is that I'm not really judging you. My first comment was about how it bought me the moral right to complain. Someone who really thinks the world would be better if nobody voted is exempt from this particular line of reasoning. Because as you said, non-voting can be a political act too.

Futarchy would provide at least as much

I'll grant this, though I don't know how existing rules about insider trading would conflict with beliefs about society itself becoming officially the object of trade and profit.

and Neocameralism should in theory provide more freedom of speech than I currently have.

If I understand Moldbug's neocameralism, it would give the government the perfect right to behead you if it doesn't like your taste in shoes -- because in Moldbug's view there's no difference between the right to do something and the power to do something. And Moldbug advocates in favour the government having complete and total power over all its subjects.

He just argues that the government won't bother exercising such power because it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so. But unfortunately Moldbug's view that a government totally in control wouldn't bother to control people's thoughts goes in contrast with pretty much everything we know about history. He arrives at a purely "logical" conclusion which just isn't backed up by historical experience.

Not that I wouldn't love cities that would be individually run as corporations -- e.g. this . It's the Neocameralist vision of them having absolute power of life and death over their subjects that scares the hell out of me.

I note that Moldbug's example of Singapore as a well-run state which is run on non-Universalist and non-Democratic principles was hilariously backed by a Singapore resident's letter which was so terrified of being seen to criticize Singapore, that even in his mostly-praiseful letter he felt he had to use the name "Narnia" instead of the name "Singapore". Such freedom of speech in a well-run authoritarian state...