It is better to suffer injustice than to do injustice. This fundamental formula formed the basis of the ethics of Socrates. Upon it he based his politics; he adhered to it even to the point of death. I may disagree with him on the precise duties that are owed to one’s government, but this fundamental ethical principle remains as inviolable and as true as when he advocated it.
What is injustice? We should know, so that we may avoid doing it even if that means suffering it.
Injustice is not simply inequality, for we all have different skills and abilities that fit us for different tasks. Division of labor and the inequalities produced by it are essential for human flourishing. Injustice is not simply the rulers of a society looking out for their own ends to the detriment of the common good. By this definition God himself could be deemed unjust, for he, for the sake of love, has granted unto mankind free will, from which has proceeded all the pain, suffering, and death of the whole of human history, even to the point of allowing a large portion of the human race to condemn themselves to hell. Would it not have been better for the common good had God ruled us absolutely?
Whatever injustice is, God has no part in it, though he seems to be willing to sacrifice the common good for the sake of Love. Let us view God as the prime example of the nature of justice. Love is the highest value, and as free will is necessary for it, even the denial of the common good is to be sought for the sake of liberty. Injustice, therefore, consists in government founded upon the violation of liberty by force or fraud, rather than being founded upon the clear consent of the governed.
On the issue of voting, let us apply this principle. Suppose there are two candidates, both of whom we know to be willing in whatever degree to violate the laws as established by supposed consent of the governed. In the vote we wield actual political power, should we prove to be within the majority. But, some of you will now be saying in protest, we are not a pure democracy, we elect representatives. I am well aware of this principle, but should we be part of the majority, the law enforces our choice of representative.
Should we vote for a candidate that will violate the law to whatever degree, should he win the majority, we have exerted our governmental force to establish someone who will violate the law. We would be, in short, using what little direct political power we have unjustly. Voting for the lesser of two evils is simply the refusal to suffer injustice rather than to do injustice. When has there been a candidate who would perfectly abide by justice and constitutional law should they have been elected? Almost never. Therefore we should, with respect to candidates, either not vote or vote for candidates that have no chance whatsoever of achieving the majority.
I decide whether to vote or not depending on whether there are ballot issues that directly (i.e. not by potentially unjust proxy) decrease the size of government towards a more free and just level. This year, for my state of Colorado, I did not see any such ballot issue that would directly make the government more in accordance with liberty and thereby with justice. I accordingly made the decision to avoid voting in this year’s election.
This choice was not reached out of any sort of political apathy. I care deeply about many of the issues at stake. I, however, believe that to use the vote either for the lesser of two evils or for ballot issues that do not directly lead to greater justice, I would be doing injustice. I would sooner suffer under bad government than to govern badly. Evil does not win when good men do nothing, for by turning the other cheek good men heap burning coals upon evil. Evil wins when good men do evil to stop evil.
