The Free View-- weblog of a presidential candidate

The Lesser of Two Evils (is still evil)

I received a comment recently from a concerned citizen-

...the only reason I support a party who supports this here war on drugs, is for the lesser of two evils. At least I have a say in the system. Libs can toss their vote to [Harry] Browne or Lance (in the future). I'll stick with my ole compromised self.

I respond:

the only reason I support a party who supports this here war on drugs, is for the lesser of two evils.

Does this mean that not supporting the War On Drugs is the greater of two evils? And Libertarianism is the great evil, while Demorepublicatism is the lesser evil?

And if you're simply saying that the Dems and Reps are The Two Evils, and you are choosing one (which you presume is less Evil)-------Why are you choosing evil? Presumably it's because

At least I have a say in the system.

You have a say in the system that arrests 500,000 people each year for marijuana crimes, and self-admittedly is graduating millions of morons annually from its schools. Congratulations.

The founding fathers had "a say" in the British-ruled government of their Colonies, too. Over the distance of a vast, vast sea. Just like us. In order to change the rules that they lived by, they had to go begging to the Motherland. Since the Motherland didn't actually live under the rules, it was difficult for It to understand the implications of those rules locally, or to care. It didn't work then, and it isn't working now.

You "have a say" within a very limited framework, one that will perpetrate evil no matter what you say. The implications of the level of involvement in our personal and financial lives that the Two Evils advocate and enforce is immeasurable. The agency in charge of collecting almost 2 Trillion Dollars from us (IRS, don'tcha know!) hasn't released a conclusive organizational budget (their own budget, not the big one) in years, and the number of deaths caused by over-reaching military involvement (also immeasurable) is something that you couldn't lower if you wanted to.

We all know the atrocities; The list is practically infinite. How many involuntary experiments on citizens and soldiers? How many unjust wars? How many opportunities stifled? A biggie- How many people unfairly jailed?

Under a Libertarian Government, the capacity for these atrocities would be diminished severely. Indeed, the government's near-sole purpose would be to eliminate the use of force against others.

While you might have to work to stay alive if the Libertarians were in charge, you sure wouldn't have the government spiking your punch, or eradicating innocent foreign folks without cause.