Just the first wave.
This November, I chose not to vote for a presidential candidate, but maybe not for the reason you’d think.
I didn’t choose to withhold my vote from one candidate because I wanted to help their opponent; I realize that’s illogical because voting isn’t a zero-sum game.
I didn’t do it just because I know my vote isn’t decisive, either; I’m fully aware that I have somewhere around a 1-in-60 million chance of affecting the outcome of the Presidential election.
I chose to not vote for a Presidential candidate because I’m an advocate for liberty, and after some consideration, I realized my reasoning was rooted in my understanding of the virtues of a free market.
Throughout this trying election season, we’ve been told how much is at stake with our vote. But the success of any democracy depends on continuing to pay attention long after we cast our ballots.
So let’s pledge to strengthen our democracy with a few resolutions to focus our intentions and keep us moving forward over the next four years.
Historically, the Cuban-American community has been considered a political monolith, voting mostly in support of the Republican Party, at least at the national level. To the extent that this has been true, it has been most applicable to the early exile community we now call the historicos.
The origins of this early exile support for the Republican Party can be reasonably traced to U.S. foreign policy, and to President Eisenhower’s robust anti-communist posture. Eisenhower and his Republican Party’s anti-Castro stance were followed by the cannibalization of the Bay of Pigs invasion plans under the Democratic leadership of President Kennedy and the resulting failure of the invasion.
It’s also a human right
Imagine living in a country in which the two major parties had nominated a statist, war-mongering crook and a nasty authoritarian narcissist. Imagine being embarrassed that after more than two centuries of existence this apparently was the best your beloved country could do. Imagine considering that the best option on Election Day might be committing ritual Seppuku, but deciding to stay home instead.
The Freedom to Stay Home
But then imagine government officials showing up at your door, demanding that you accompany them to the polling place to vote for one of the candidates who you would scratch your eyes out before actually watching speak. That is the world which some high-minded “civic activists” desire.
Every election can be expected to unleash ponderous commentaries bemoaning low voter turnout. Many Americans don’t register, let alone cast ballots. Why, oh why, won’t they get out and participate—which usually means vote left? It is so unfair, we are told. The wealthy, elderly, and well-educated disproportionately participate, which “skews policymaking,” complained the Economist. Just think of all the government programs the underrepresented could vote for themselves if only they showed up on Election Day.
There are conditions under which victims can share responsibility for a crime. Following are three examples:
Three people are hiding in a closet because a home invader breaks into their home. All three people are victims of this invasion. If two of the three people secretly decide that their best chance for survival is to come out of hiding and give up the third person to the invader in exchange for their own safety, it would not be inappropriate to say that they share responsibility for the outcome of what happens to that person despite the fact that they are not primarily responsible for the situation itself. It might even be said that the third person would blame them and accuse them of being complicit in the crime despite the fact that all three people were victims.
Someone robs a bank and takes a group of twenty people hostage. All twenty people are victims of this crime. After a few hours, the robber gets careless. The hostages secretly work out a plan to best him and turn him over to the police. As the group goes to spring their plan into action, two of the hostages get cold feet. They inform the robber of the plan, throw themselves at his mercy and swear their allegiance to him, thereby alerting him and preventing everyone’s escape. All twenty people are victims, but the other eighteen people are still going to blame those two for preventing their escape.
The Federal government goes $200 trillion into fictitious debt that it intends to hold over the heads of tax cattle to bleed them for resources. Every once in a while, elections are held to create the perception that the tax cattle ARE the government. In the entire history of this system, the fake debt and taxes have only ever gone up and never down, and the people who win the elections are never accountable to the tax cattle; in fact, they are granted salaries that are paid for with tax theft. Some tax cattle are enthusiastically supportive of this system, perceive it as a net gain to themselves, and vote in favor of its expansion. Some tax cattle are wary of this system, but still believe that elections are the only way to lessen the burden of the fake debt and tax theft on themselves. Among these, some want theft-funded free college. Some want theft-funded social security. Some want theft-funded food and healthcare.
What is the definition of insanity?