ForWhichItStood.org

Recently, I wrote a letter to the editor of my school newspaper about the lesser of two evils. While I think I got my point across, I was unable to go into much detail because of the 450 word limit that was put in place. In this post I hope to further expand on the thinking that went behind the article.

If you live in America, chances are you’ve often heard of the term the “lesser evil.” In politics especially, people are constantly referencing “the lesser of two evils.” The philosophy is this, essentially; when given two poor choices for a leader (the president), people (the voters) chose the candidate who they think will do the least damage. This school of thought is not restricted to our current election where voters “must” chose between McCain or Obama; this way of thinking has existed for at least a century. Unfortunately, mainstream America followings this voting philosophy. The problem with voting for the lesser evil is that this philosophy is fundamentally flawed.

When a voter votes for what they consider the “lesser evil,” they’re still voting for evil. Evil is evil is evil. Regardless of which of the two they vote for, they’re still choosing a candidate they feel is inadequate for the position. When one of the options is considered either the lesser or greater evil, both choices will hurt the country. In such – this is essentially the definition of such a philosophy. In such a situation, we cannot expect overall improvement; rather, we will experience backwards progress. Instead of solving problems and bettering our once-great nation, with a lesser evil in a leadership position, we will be creating more problems than we are solving. This collectively results in negative progress; perhaps some problems may be worked out; some solutions might be found; however, these solutions will either be inadequate or overshadowed by newer, direr problems that the new administration would create. The result of electing either “evil” is a nation that decays.

When presented with two bad choices, do not vote for the choice you think is less bad. Evil is evil, wrong is wrong, a bad choice is a bad choice. One might be slightly better than the other, but in the end they’re both going to do more harm than good. By following this school of thought - that there is a lesser evil - you’re giving in to a false dichotomy. The truth is you do have a choice. You can chose between more than two in such a situation, which should void the lesser evil philosophy.

In modern politics, people often have to choice between a Republican presidential candidate and a Democratic presidential candidate, often when they dislike both choices. In such a situation, rather than choosing the lesser evil, the voter could choice to vote for a third party. Many Americans would rather vote for a third party candidate, but fear that such a vote would be a wasted vote. The reality is if all Americans that thought this way voted for a third party, a third party would likely have a viable chance at winning the election. Moreover, if we are to peacefully reform the electoral process, it probably will not happen overnight. Gradually, we will gain a foothold.

In reality, the Republicans and Democrats have duopoly on the political system. One of the few instances in which they work together is when they work together to keep third parties out of the system. If you’re a candidate for a third party, it is extremely difficult to be listed on state ballots and nearly impossible to appear in the political debates. The reason for this is because the two major parties are the ones who set the standards for entrance into the debates, which they set ridiculously high. By doing so, they make the chance of a third party appearing to discuss issues virtually nil.

I encourage voters to break away from the mindset of voting for the lesser evil. I suspect this is the majority of Americans. Not only is this mindset a flawed way of thinking, it degrades our country, slows progress, and only strengthens the two parties’ hold on the system. If we ever want true change, voters need to wake up and stop voting for more of the same. We need to stop voting for the status quo. As voters ,we need to choose a new party, such as the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, or Independents. We need to demand a change to the electoral system; we need to destroy the duopoly’s grasp on how things are run. Rather than have a two party system, we need a three party system, a four party system; we need a system that allows equal access to an infinite amount of parties. Voters should vote for a candidate who truly represents their values and ideology, rather than a candidate who is, allegedly, “less evil.”]

In modern times, most politicians will tell people what they want to hear, rather than what the candidates themselves believe. I suspect that one of the main reasons the two leading parties try so savagely to keep other parties out of the debates is to keep their voices from being heard; by having the opinions of third parties heard, the Republicrats would be forced to address issues of real importance. Rarely do we hear a “viable” candidate address issues such as sound money, smaller government, non-interventionism, abolition of victimless crimes or returning to a Constitutional government. Were a third party to directly confront a candidate of either the Republicans or the Democrats with such issues, voters would likely see through the shallowness of the candidates of the Democrats and Republicans.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Voting for the lesser evil is a vote for the status quo; it is a vote for backwards progress, and it is a vote for a candidate you dislike. A system that is restricted to a duopoly is a broken system, and the first step towards fixing such a problem is to stop voting for the lesser evil and to begin voting for a candidate who represents the values one holds dear.

Recently, Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty surpassed its 100,000 member goal. While the group didn’t meet its goal by September 2nd as it hoped, it only fell short by a few days. Thi100,000 member mark is yet another milestone in our fight for freedom.

The fact that the Campaign For Liberty has gained so many members in such a short time is evidence that the message of freedom and liberty continue to resonate in the hearts and minds of the American people. We need to unite today to spread the message of liberty and to elect officials that share our view of freedom.

Additionally, the Rally For the Republic drew over 84,000 viewers from 91 countries. This shows that the message of liberty isn’t exclusive to the United States. The actual event, held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, drew over 12,000 people. Ron Paul’s Rally For the Republic speech was one of the greatest I’ve ever heard, and is bound to be a historic event. Please take time to watch it here.

Additionally, the Campaign For Liberty released a notice saying that Ron Paul will speak at the National Press Club at 10:00 am this Wednesday. This will be a “special announcement.” The CFL states, “Dr. Paul will announce his intentions for the fall presidential election and will be accompanied by several special guests.” Ron Paul supporters are already speculating on what that could mean. Most likely it will involve the next step of the Campaign For Liberty. He may endorse Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or both of them. Some people have suggested that this could be an even bigger announcement; the Constitution Party and the Libertarian party could merge, or Ron Paul could run for President. Both of these are extremely improbably and nothing more than wishful thinking. Regardless, hopefully Wednesday will be something big enough to shake the foundation of this two party system. Several other third party candidates will be attending, so it seems likely that this press release could involve some method of involving third parties in the debates. The Campaign For Liberty could potentially be hosting a debate that would include third party candidates.

As we look forward to Dr. Paul’s annoucement this Wednesday, let us take pride in the fact that our movement is gaining momentum. The 100,000 member mark for the Campaign For Liberty is a fantastic milestone, but is only one of many more to come. Godspeed, friends of liberty.

The issue of the drinking age has recently come to public attention once more. Over 100 college presidents are calling for lawmakers to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. The argument that many presidents of the 100 colleges, including presidents from Duke, Dartmouth, and Ohio State use, is that the current age encourages binge drinking on or around campus. This group of college presidents call themselves the Amethyst Initiative. Their goal isn’t necessarily to repeal the drinking age limit set by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, but rather to promote debate and discussion on the issue. Since they’ve come into the public spotlight, they’ve faced a lot of criticism.

Let’s think about it in more detail. Why not? I’m 18. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to take a drink? Personally, I dislike alcohol. Were the limit dropped to 18, I most likely wouldn’t drink at all; even so, I think that I should still have the right to drink if I chose to.

It’s illogical and unjust. It’s an infringement on the personal liberties of anyone from 18 to 21. At 18, I’m old enough to enlist in the military, old enough to vote, old enough to sign private contracts, old enough to get married, and old enough to buy pornography and cigarettes. However, I’m still not old enough to buy and consume alcohol?

This issue, in my mind, is very similar to the issue of voting. The voting age was 21 until it was lowered to 18 by the 26th Amendment. While the right to drink alcohol is hardly as important as the right to vote, it’s the same concept. The government has a long habit of giving youth adult responsibilities, yet continues to treat them like children.

Many people will have strong, convincing arguments about why the drinking age should remain at 21. Perhaps drinking among college students will increase. It probably will. That being said, most college students will drink anyway. I could not immediately find statistics, but I know that a majority of college students under 21 have tried alcohol, and a large percentage still drinks regularly.

If the drinking age was lowered, it would most likely result in increased drinking for people in the 18 - 21 age bracket. However, it’s likely that it would gradually fall as students grew used to it. It would be become more casual and less of a big deal, which would most likely result in a decrease in their usage of alcohol.

Regardless of whether or not students would drink more or less in the long run, the fact is that they should be allowed to drink at 18. It doesn’t matter if they’ll drink anyway, it doesn’t matter that the rest of the world has a drinking age of 18; what matters is that, as a responsible adult, those age 18 to 21 should be able to make decissions for themselves. Essentially, an 18 year old is an adult and should be treatd as one; they should be trusted to know their limits and to drink responsibility. Just as it is not the governments duty to police morality, censor the internet, or regulate what people do in the privacy of their homes, it is not the government’s duty to prohibit and 18-year-old from drinking.

In the small town of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, authoritarianistic ideas are being enacted. The town is known for its high crime rates and poverty levels. Because of the increased violence and crime, the City Council imposed a 24-hour curfew based off a 9-0 vote. The curfew started out in a ten-block, high crime area of the city; however, yesterday the City Council expanded the curfew to cover the entire city. If police find people on the street, they can stop and question them. This has resulted in several arrests. The city went ahead with a city-wide curfew, despite an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who warned them that these actions were unconstitutional. The City Council said that they want the shootings, drugs, and violence to stop, regardless of the cost.

“Now if somebody wants to sue us, they have an option to sue, but I’m fairly certain that a judge will see it the way the way the citizens see it here,” Mayor James Valley said. “The citizens deserve peace, that some infringement on constitutional rights is OK and we have not violated anything as far as the Constitution.”

“We’ve had people call us, expressing concern for their children,” Fielder, the Police Chief said. “They had to sleep on the floor, because of stray bullets.”

“As far as I’m concerned, at 3 o’clock in the morning, nobody has any business being on the street, except the law,” Councilman Eugene “Red” Johnson said. “Anyone out at 3 o’clock shouldn’t be out on the street, unless you’re going to the hospital.”

The Mayor seems to think that the Judge will side with something unconstitutional because it’s necessary; the Police Chief plays on the fears of the citizens; and the Councilman seems to think he knows what the people should and shouldn’t do, despite the fact there is no law to support his claim. That being said, so far it appears that, rather than arresting anyone for violating the curfew, the police simply ask questions. If they act nervous or odd, they’re further interrogated or searched.

The situation is obviously a delicate one. The city has to balance the rights of its citizens with increased crime; it appears, however, that the city has a high disregard for its citizens rights.

The U.S. Constitution says, in the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

A 24 hour curfew seems like a violation of the right to assemble. Why can’t a lawful citizen go out of their house when they like? According to the city’s government, it’s because of crime. However, is the threat of harm or unlawfulness sufficient enough to infringe on the right of the people? Most certainly not. Additionally, the city may have issue with our fourth amendment right, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The fourth amendment states that:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

As of yet, it doesn’t appear this has been an issue, though it very well could become one in the near future. For example, say a police offer stops a man leaving his house (without cause). They have no bases to stop him, yet they do. They then deem that he is acting “suspiciously.” They can then search them. In such a situation, the police would be violating not one, but two fundamental rights of the American people.

It seems as if the city government is playing on the fear of its citizens. Essential, this is an example of extending government reach on a local level. The city has become, or is becoming, its own miniature police state where the local government can do whatever it wants, regardless of the rights of its citizens.

Remember, as Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Any type of political compromise is dangerous. In my opinion, you should never give up what you stand for, your  beliefs, your principles, or your personal liberty. Any law or compromise politically that takes away from one’s doctrine should be regarded with high scrutiny.

Economic compromise is especially dangerous and problematic to the country as a whole. One thing I’ve noticed in the past year or two is that there’s been increased anger over the free market. Because of recent economic problems, many people have blamed capitalism for Americas problems. Some people have gone so far as to suggest that we should rethink our entire economic structure and scrap capitalism for a much dangerous and unworkable socialistic system. In reality, socialism would be far worse that the most restricted of free markets; moreover, it is not the free market that has caused our recent economic problems, but rather restrictions on the free market and economic compromise.

What many people don’t realize is that the free market and limited government often go hand in hand. With a big government, the ability to have a truly free market is greatly restricted. Increased taxes, high tariffs, trade restrictions, zoning laws and other restrictions on trade are restrictions on free trade and should be reduced or eliminated.

A good example of a poor economic compromise would be keeping tax cuts for the poor but disposing of them for the rich. On the surface, this sort of thing sounds good to the average American. The greedy upper class gets taxed and I get taxed less. This is not good for the average citizen or America. Taxing the rich more than the poor doesn’t help the poor become any richer, it only makes the rich poorer - and that doesn’t help anyone. More importantly, the rich, the ones who would be taxed in such a compromise, are many of the people who create jobs, invest in companies, or venture in new startups. Essentially, by taxing the rich we would be hurting the economy by taking money away from people who would have otherwise pooled that money into economic investments and ventures.

Another example of a bad economic compromise would be in the matter of federal spending. The federal government is constantly spending more money than they have or receive in tax revenue; many times these spending are on trivial and unnecessary things. The government should be run like a household, at least in this case. Would you spend more than you have? Many people do and they end up with enormous debt and often file bankruptcy. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that radical spending and poor fiscal responsibility is hurting America.

In order to move towards economic freedom and keep our current economic liberties, compromise must be a rarity. Political compromise may sometimes be necessary, but one should never sacrifice ones principles or liberties, regardless of how attractive it may be.