journal:

On Quitting

By Jonathan Feaster

2008-07-27

For most politicians, especially the ones who are Democrats or Republicans, there is little or no hope that they'll deliver what any sane, freedom-loving person would consider satisfactory results once you put them in office. There's simply no such thing as the "lesser of two evils", heck, the pols don't even believe in it, and it should be even more apparent now in this election.

It's like what Harry Browne said during the 2000 election:

"You may say, "I can't stand Al Gore; I've got to vote for George Bush." But do you think George Bush will accept the idea that you voted for him as the lesser of two evils? No, he'll take your vote as an endorsement of every one of his plans to make government larger and larger. He'll assume you voted for him because you like the fact that he helped make the Texas government bigger and bigger. He'll say, "They like me, they like me!""

"If you vote for Al Gore because you don't like George W. Bush or you're afraid of the Religious Right, I can guarantee that Al Gore won't pay attention to your reason. He, too, will use your vote as an encouragement to make government bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive."

When I read about some pundit talking about how, "If you vote for spoiler c you'll just be taking votes away from a for b." or how, "C has no chance so you're throwing away a vote." I can't help but think how hopelessly naive and defeatist those fallacies are. If you just accept those ideas before you even give the alternatives a chance for consideration and debate you really are selling yourself short from possibly bringing about real improvement. You are simply quitting and saying that new and quite possibly better ideas are impossible. You are saying that the consistent bad ideas are the only one's that are votable and thus viable. Consider what Browne said of the bad or bad options:

"If you vote Republican or Democrat, you are giving up. You're saying "I'm never going to be free. America will never be a free country again. I will never get smaller government. So I'm just going to vote for the one I think will take me to hell at the slowest-possible rate.""

If you're quitting, why even bother voting for the same old bad ideas? If you're giving up at least give up in a way that has more of a chance in hitting them where it hurts-their legitimacy. If your choices are nothing but evil, and you're sure that evil's going to win, the last thing you want to do is legitimize it by letting it claim that "the people have spoken"! Thomas DiLorenzo entertains the wonderful thought of what might happen if "the people" finally just blew the bums off:

"Imagine what a patriotic thrill you would receive if, in the next presidential election, a mere 10 percent of the electorate, instead of the usual 50 percent or so, voted. The unconstitutional regime in Washington would be de-legitimized."

When it comes to voting, abstaining isn't quitting-voting for the lesser of two evils, or rather, voting for evil is.

So what if you're not a quitter and there is one of those rare good guys who dares to challenge Goliath? By all means if they're really one of the good guys support them as much as you can but be sure that they really are the good guys. No one can guarantee that a person will do what they say they're going to do, especially once they get even the slightest taste of power. Beware:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." - Lord Acton

Don't be afraid to ask the tough questions of them and yourself. You'll know in your heart what's right or wrong. When it comes to trusting people with power through government, like the myth of "the lesser of two evils", there's no such thing as being too cynical.

• We Believe in You by Harry Browne
• Be Patriotic: Don't Vote by Thomas J. DiLorenzo