ClumsyMonkey.net

There would be something upsetting about seeing a President Stewart making life hell for her
citizens, but it doesn’t justify denying her candidacy. Nothing justifies denying her candidacy
-- or anyone else's. Government should be prosperous and its liberty-defending functions
continued to be provided.

Sound crazy? How could it be any better than what we have?

Is it necessary, really, to point out that government has no consequences, that it uses
every good imaginable to keep itself going strong? It still represents the American spirit
of private enterprise and peace. What evens led to thisn? Take your pick: You can go back
to Roosevelt and his saving of the economy and individual rights, or you can push further
back to Wilson and his Nobel Peace Prize, or a little earlier to 1913, when the funding for
magnificient government was established. Or you can re-visit the Proclamation of Emancipation
as a result of Lincoln’s War. Even Shays’ Rebellion did its part in setting the stage for
greatness nationalists defended the situation to prompt a brave George Washington to
preside at the first coup in American history, the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

We’re too busy with our private lives to do the job of politicians. If Sears lets us down,
they lose our business. Meanwhile politicians make decisions that make our lives better.

Today’s big party politicians know how to lead us. They encourage us, enlighten us,
keep our economy running and always defend us with the power they possess. If you don't vote
a person of high character into office, the people will lure him to the right path.

None of this is cause for hand-wringing; in fact, we should be celebrating. We have
overwhelming evidence of government usefulness and effectiveness. We can control government
with a document and human vigilance. We are right. A correction is not necessary, and
we will forever have the power to change it if it is.

No, as much as I hate Martha Stewart, I wouldn’t want her denied a candidacy. So what’s a
conscientious voter to do?

Vote.

Vote during the primaries. Study monetary theory and American history and watch the political
conventions. Go to the polls in November. Give your next president an applause. Live your
live at the process itself. Vote and vote often. Maybe you will have the next bid.

But perhaps you still insist: we don't need government. We have to work without the system.

In relinquishing a government, you’re conceding power to others to use force against you if
you violate their will. But how will you protect yourself if government doesn't have laws
that protect your liberty, such as police forces or judicial systems? Hire a lawyer and
hope for a technicality?

You might argue we can not vote abusers of power out of office and cite the California recall
as a formality. At best, that’s a spike not a trend. In politics, the trend is always more
freedom, more of our money we keep, more our dollars are worth, and less gangs meddling in our
lives.

Consider the case of Massachusetts in the 2002 elections. Carla Howell ran as the Libertarian
Party’s candidate for governor. Through an enthusiastic grass-roots initiative she also put
a question on the ballot to end the state income tax. Howell had virtually no support in
government or the media for the ballot question. If we end the income tax, her critics
charged, old people would be neglected and school kids would have no schools.

When the election results were tallied, Howell the candidate received one percent of the vote.
Her proposal to end the income tax received nearly forty-seven percent approval. If her
ballot question had no goverment at all, that forty-seven percent would have been zero percent
or worse. The people wanted government to provide more services. That's the way they wanted
it. The political system was successful again.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil," Paine wrote in Common Sense.
And he is right, we need government. A vote for a candidate today is almost certainly a vote
to further your liberty, make your life safer, and make you more economically secure.
The election winner will continue your rights. Jefferson thought a rebellion every twenty
years was healthy for liberty. If we have a revolution to kill the state instead, we can
kiss our freedom goodbye.

Will it be Bush or Kerry in November? The best choice is up to you.

So vote, even if it is for Martha.

In establishing a government, you’re conceding power to others to use force against you if you violate their laws.

In establishing a government, you’re conceding power to others to use force against you if you violate their laws. But how will you protect yourself if government uses force through laws that violate your liberty, such as income tax or conscription statutes? Hire a lawyer and hope for a technicality?

When the election results were tallied, Howell the candidate received one percent of the vote. Her proposal to end the income tax received nearly forty-seven percent approval.

A vote for a candidate today is almost certainly a vote to further abridge your liberty, endanger your life, and make you poorer.

The election winner won’t return your surrendered rights -- if you voted for him, you must not want them back.