No other entity on earth has been responsible for more death, ruin, inhumaneness, bullying, and human-rights violations than the State(s). Falsely, the State attempts to attribute to itself prosperity and human progress. However, these are features of the free-market, which survives despite the State’s constant pestering, harassment, and misguided efforts to tinker with the market via central planners. When one studies “evil,” history opens its books to chapter one – The State, where “evil” is on full display.
Modern-day political discussions center on debating the “lesser evil.” Voters use the euphemism to justify their decision to back a particular candidate. This is an illusion. A gimmick created by the State on the heels of history’s shift away from the political philosophy of the divine right of kings. Never mind that the State remained; evil securely intact. “New and improved” statism puts evil to a vote, and now individuals can pick their poison – so they think.
Society is comfortable with voting, and I am not opposed to voting in the general sense of the word. A vote is an endorsement. We vote/endorse many things throughout the course of a day. We vote with our time, and most visibly, we vote with our money. Perhaps this morning you voted with a couple of units of currency for your favorite coffee. Knowing this, how individuals conduct transactions, the State uses this mostly harmless act of endorsing things to its benefit … the trick is on!
The hoax is simple. Every time we vote or endorse a thing, we signal to that thing that what they are doing is legitimate. That we value what they are providing, and we want more of it. But is the State worthy of such an endorsement? Again, history is not kind to the State and its results.
Suppose you could go back to the early eighteenth-century. Would you be comfortable endorsing a little slavery, compared to much slavery? Could you sleep at night defending your “lesser of two evils” position? The only ethical solution to slavery, the only morally consistent position would be a complete abolition of all forms of slavery, and for it to happen immediately. All other positions would be deemed foolish and irrational.
Consider this absurd fictional argument a citizen of the 1800s could have made. “If you don’t vote for a little slavery, you are voting for much slavery.” This is why utilitarians don’t shape the world; principled individuals DO.
The modern-day voter, while justifying their position, is trying to engage in mental gymnastics – trying to choose “a little slavery,” or putting the right plantation owner in charge. They are failing to recognize the obvious evilness of slavery. The rational conclusion? Abolish evil. Today, not tomorrow. Do not take part, and for heaven’s sake don’t give an endorsement. Slavery did not deserve any further endorsements, and neither does the State. Will the history books honor your position, or look squeamishly at your flawed conclusions and character? It’s your choice, your endorsement, your vote.
