Republicans for several years now have consistently played the “fear” card when it comes election . . . → Read More: Fear Mongering and Voting in Georgia]]> [UPDATE Aug 20 2010] After some requests, I’m bumping this post back to the top of the page this morning while I work on another post on this topic that I hope to get up over the weekend. -Jeff

Republicans for several years now have consistently played the “fear” card when it comes election time. They consistently set up some Democrat – be it Al Gore, Roy Barnes, John Kerry, Mark Taylor, or Barack Obama – as some kind of Big Evil that is out to destroy us all, and then try to make us so afraid that we HAVE to vote for the Republican to avoid the Boogie Man. They tell us that if we vote for some “third” party that is more in line with our personal values rather than Their Candidate, the Boogie Man will win and all hope will be lost.

The problem is, Georgia is a “Runoff State” in every election other than the actual Presidential Election. In every race in this State other than President of the United States, a single candidate MUST receive 50% of the votes plus one vote in order to win the election.

It is due to Georgia being a Runoff State that the case for third parties is actually made EASIER, upon any amount of thought.

You see, because a candidate MUST get 50% + 1, and EVERY candidate is in the election to win it (at least they will claim to be), more choices almost always guarantees a runoff election. One need look no further than this year’s Governor race to see this. The Democrats currently have five candidates in that race, and the Republicans currently have eight. Due to this high volume of candidates, BOTH races are expected to go into runoffs. However, the Libertarian Party has also consistently shown that when it runs candidates, those candidates force runoffs, a la Alan Buckley’s 2008 US Senate campaign that forced a runoff between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin.

If Georgia had Equal Ballot Access for all Parties, this would be even MORE true. Splinter parties such as the Constitution Party of Georgia AND the Green Party of Georgia would run more candidates, and while the Libertarian Party draws votes from “both” established Parties, the Constitution Party tends to draw primarily Republican voters and the Greens tend to draw primarily Democratic voters. (The 2008 Presidential nominees of these two parties were Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney, for example.)

Because these candidates invariably force runoffs, a person can genuinely vote their conscience in the General election without fear that the Boogie Man will automatically win. Then, the voter can vote their fear in the Runoff, and have the best of both worlds – they BOTH voted their conscience AND their fear, without sacrificing EITHER.

But this brings up an even more interesting possibility: Instead of setting up the “Boggie Man” and demanding that Libertarians and Constitutionals help the Republican Party, would it not be moreso in the interests of everyone – including the Republican Party – if the Republican Party helped the Libertarians and Constitutionals?

Think about it: In the Runoff, the top 2 vote getters in the General election face off. If your argument is that the Republican Party is “an ideological cousin” of the Libertarian Party and/or Constitution Party, does it not make sense for the Republican Party to work to ensure that BOTH of the combatants in the Runoff are some form of “conservative”? After all, if the Boogie Man is SOOOOO bad, should not the Republican Party work to ensure that the Boogie Man never makes it to the General, but that instead one of its “cousins” does?

Or is the Republican Party just after its own control and power?

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Noah Webster (1758-1843)

He starts out with a brief history lesson on early political parties and the origin of the Democratic and Republican Parties, then goes into listing the various political parties that have existed and their impact, before moving to a discussion of each of the currently existing ‘major’ parties – the Greens, Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, and Constitutionals.

The entire article is highly interesting, but his analysis of the Libertarian Party is highlighted after the jump.

The Libertarian Party, organized since 1971, has one overarching principle: “respect for individual rights.” The Party favors strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, the repeal of drug prohibition–including restrictions on tobacco and alcohol–and the elimination of laws that interfere with private activities like gambling and prostitution … rather liberal stuff.

On the other hand, Libertarians also support minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, favor a non-interventionist foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel, support the right to bear arms, oppose entitlement programs–including Medicare and Medicaid–and support the repeal of the income tax and a wholesale shrinkage of the federal government, including the elimination of whole parts of it … rather conservative stuff.

Thus, while the Greens can be pigeonholed on the far left of the current political spectrum and the Constitution Party can be shelved on the far right, the Libertarian party avoids simple categorization.

Yet it is the strongest of the three second-tier parties, and it’s conceivable that it could grow more powerful in three main ways.

One is by attracting numerous disenfranchised Republicans for whom smaller government is still a goal and religion is a private issue.

Two is by attracting numerous Democrats who value personal liberties but think the current spending wave–including military spending–has gone too far.

Three is by attracting numerous independent voters who have been put off by the loss of ethics in both major parties, the lying and the cheating and the general embrace of the philosophy that maintaining political power is more important than doing what’s right.

To do this, the Libertarians would need to moderate some of its positions; I can’t for example, envision the income tax or Medicare disappearing anytime soon. But intelligent compromise on its most abrasive positions could pay big dividends.

From today’s perspective, the odds against the Libertarians are huge, but if the Republican Party continues to flounder, and if growing numbers of voters in the years ahead see the need for a new counterweight to the Democratic Party, it could happen.

As the history of the United States reminds us, political parties do not last forever. Change happens. Think about it.

H/T Bludgeon and Skewer

]]> That Iconoclast Investor has a rather interesting article about the long term trends of political parties in the US.

He starts out with a brief history lesson on early political parties and the origin of the Democratic and Republican Parties, then goes into listing the various political parties that have existed and their impact, before moving to a discussion of each of the currently existing ‘major’ parties – the Greens, Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, and Constitutionals.

The entire article is highly interesting, but his analysis of the Libertarian Party is highlighted after the jump.

The Libertarian Party, organized since 1971, has one overarching principle: “respect for individual rights.” The Party favors strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, the repeal of drug prohibition–including restrictions on tobacco and alcohol–and the elimination of laws that interfere with private activities like gambling and prostitution … rather liberal stuff.

On the other hand, Libertarians also support minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, favor a non-interventionist foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel, support the right to bear arms, oppose entitlement programs–including Medicare and Medicaid–and support the repeal of the income tax and a wholesale shrinkage of the federal government, including the elimination of whole parts of it … rather conservative stuff.

Thus, while the Greens can be pigeonholed on the far left of the current political spectrum and the Constitution Party can be shelved on the far right, the Libertarian party avoids simple categorization.

Yet it is the strongest of the three second-tier parties, and it’s conceivable that it could grow more powerful in three main ways.

One is by attracting numerous disenfranchised Republicans for whom smaller government is still a goal and religion is a private issue.

Two is by attracting numerous Democrats who value personal liberties but think the current spending wave–including military spending–has gone too far.

Three is by attracting numerous independent voters who have been put off by the loss of ethics in both major parties, the lying and the cheating and the general embrace of the philosophy that maintaining political power is more important than doing what’s right.

To do this, the Libertarians would need to moderate some of its positions; I can’t for example, envision the income tax or Medicare disappearing anytime soon. But intelligent compromise on its most abrasive positions could pay big dividends.

From today’s perspective, the odds against the Libertarians are huge, but if the Republican Party continues to flounder, and if growing numbers of voters in the years ahead see the need for a new counterweight to the Democratic Party, it could happen.

As the history of the United States reminds us, political parties do not last forever. Change happens. Think about it.

H/T Bludgeon and Skewer

]]> http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/07/10/long-term-trends-of-our-political-parties/feed/ 3 http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/06/04/partisan-elections/ http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/06/04/partisan-elections/#comments Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:00:42 +0000 Tom http://swgapolitics.com/index/?p=1286 Here in Albany and Dougherty County, we have so many non-partisan elections that it’s impossible to tell where anyone stands on the issues unless they tell you.  To many, that’s a good thing.  Me?  I’m not so sure.  I’d actually prefer partisan elections for things like city and county commission, mayor, pretty much anything . . . → Read More: Partisan Elections]]> Here in Albany and Dougherty County, we have so many non-partisan elections that it’s impossible to tell where anyone stands on the issues unless they tell you.  To many, that’s a good thing.  Me?  I’m not so sure.  I’d actually prefer partisan elections for things like city and county commission, mayor, pretty much anything else except probably District Attorney.  Why, you may ask?

Well, mostly from the unknown.  After we elect folks to office in city or county offices, new problems arise.  In our current system, it’s impossible to have determined if the official you just elected shares your values on something unless he’s already said so.  Well, in the event of unforseen circumstances, knowing someone’s party can help serve as a barometer for where they’ll stand on an issue.  It’s not 100% accurate, but it’s better than what we’ve got now.

From a Libertarian perspective, I also feel that partisan elections help the party in the long run.  Let’s take the case of a hypothetical City Commissioner named Joe Smith. 

Commissioner Joe is a good commissioner.  He’s a wonderful steward of the taxpayers and people like what he’s done for the town.  Instead of allowing wasteful spending, he funnels tax dollars into law enforcement and the city is safer…people love him.  So, he decides to run for the General Assembly where he feels like he could do some more good.

Now, he was sitting in a non-partisan seat, so when he announces that he intends to run for the General Assembly as a Libertarian, this is a bit of a shock to the voters.  They wonder “why would he run as a Libertarian?  Maybe he doesn’t think he could win the primary of the other two parties.”   They automatically discount his candidacy.

So, let’s say he had won his seat as a Libertarian and he announces.  Well, there’s the ballot access issues to deal with, but since he’s a beloved official already, there’s tons of volunteers to gather signatures and gather them they do.  No one discounts his candidacy since he was a Libertarian the whole time. They know this has been his position all along.

Obviously, this is true for any third party as well.  Maybe Joe is more of a Green Party kind of guy, or Constitution Party.  Who knows.  The point is, this is actually a benefit for him in the long run.

Now, I’m quite sure that plenty will disagree.  There’s a great deal of thought that running for non-partisan seats initially gives the Libertarian candidate a base of support prior to running in partisan races.  They can turn that support into the volunteer operations I outline above.

I would probably agree with them, if it weren’t for the perception of Libertarian candidates as being symbolic or worse.  We can complain about ballot access laws all we want, but we need to do something first.  We will never change the laws until we can get into power.   To do that, we need to do something drastic.

I can’t help but believe that partisan elections might actually be the springboard to help make a Libertarian Revolution happen.

]]> http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/06/04/partisan-elections/feed/ 0 http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/05/18/an-excellent-analysis/ http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/05/18/an-excellent-analysis/#comments Mon, 18 May 2009 14:55:10 +0000 Tom http://swgapolitics.com/index/?p=951 NBC’s chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd has an interesting piece on MSNBC today.  In it, he outlines what he perceives as the weaknesses in the Republican Party.  He lays down no holds barred analysis of what the GOP is doing wrong, the vast majority of which I agree with.  His . . . → Read More: An Excellent Analysis]]> NBC’s chief White House correspondent and political director Chuck Todd has an interesting piece on MSNBC today.  In it, he outlines what he perceives as the weaknesses in the Republican Party.  He lays down no holds barred analysis of what the GOP is doing wrong, the vast majority of which I agree with.  His analysis is, in my opinion, dead on.

And Libertarians need to read it too.

You see, people are disenfranchised with the GOP because many feel their party turned it’s back on them.  Under President Bush, the federal government exploded in size and shrank in the arena of personal freedom.  We now have the Department of Homeland Security and the US PATRIOT Act.  The GOP, once a viable counterbalance to the liberal Democrats, is now just the same fiscally as those same Democrats.

During the General Election, both Barrak Obama and John McCain had their own plans for health care.  Neither one said “we’re going to remove tax breaks on corporate financed health care so insurance companies will be forced to drop their prices and make health care affordable for all.”  Instead, both plans involved government intervention in a massive scale.  The difference was in the details.  Once upon a time, the idea of national health care was ridiculous.  Today?  We’re one step closer toward it being reality.

The GOP has lost it’s way.  Many of the fiscal conservatives out there are looking for a home.  We can be that home for them!

It’s easy to dismiss former Republicans, but remember that most people started out as either a Democrat or Republican before they became Libertarian.  It’s time to remember that and to reach out to these people.  If Todd is right, that shouldn’t be to difficult.

People who once identified with the Republican Party are asking for two primary things:  Increased personal freedom, and smaller government.  On those issues, Libertarianism fits the bill perfectly.  Now is the idea time to step up.

Opportunity rarely knocks twice.  Let’s hurry the hell up and answer the door!

]]> http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/05/18/an-excellent-analysis/feed/ 20 http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/05/14/monsters-and-the-weak-a-response-to-yesterday-mornings-small-town-soapbox/ http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/05/14/monsters-and-the-weak-a-response-to-yesterday-mornings-small-town-soapbox/#comments Thu, 14 May 2009 11:13:44 +0000 Jeff http://swgapolitics.com/index/?p=847 I typically listen to KCountry 104.5 in the mornings on my way to work because they syndicate a morning show out of the northern suburbs of Atlanta from a man that I grew up listening to on Kicks 101.5, Moby in the Morning. I don’t remember him doing this ‘Small town Soapbox’ every morning . . . → Read More: Monsters and the Weak: A Response to Yesterday Morning’s “Small Town Soapbox”]]> I typically listen to KCountry 104.5 in the mornings on my way to work because they syndicate a morning show out of the northern suburbs of Atlanta from a man that I grew up listening to on Kicks 101.5, Moby in the Morning. I don’t remember him doing this ‘Small town Soapbox’ every morning when I was growing up, but it is a daily feature of his show now, and generally it is pretty good.

Yesterday morning’s, however, irked me a bit – which is something Moby admits is occasionally his intention.

It was entitled ‘Monsters and the Weak‘, and the first half of it is GREAT. It talks about a reporter stumbling upon an American sniper in Iraq, and the sniper doing his job and killing a man just before he can detonate a bomb on a crowded street 800 yards away. The reporter tells the sniper that he wants to put the sniper in the news, and the sniper tells the reporter that he was just doing his job. That the doorway next to where the dead bomber’s body lays used to be a grocery store, and the rubble across the street used to be a school – before another bomber came in and successfully blew it all away.

Let me pause here and say that I am personally grateful for all the sacrifices the members of our armed forces make. I know several personally who have served and are serving, and I myself was at one point within 12 hours of signing up for a trip to Parris Island before God/Fate/whatever you want to call it intervened and sent me down a different path.

Continuing: But then the poem starts talking about typical right-wing pro-War propaganda, and this is where my problem arises. Here is the quote of the relevant portion I have a problem with:

“As bad as all this is though,
it could be a whole lot worse,”
He swallowed hard,
the words came from his mouth just like a curse.

“Today the fight’s on foreign land,
on streets that aren’t my own,”
“I’m here today ’cause if I fail,
the next fight’s back at home.”

“And I won’t let my Safeway burn,
my neighbors dead inside,
don’t wanna get a call from school
that says my daughter died;

I pray that not a one of them
will know the things I see,
nor have the work of terrorists
etched in their memory.”

“So you can keep your trophies
and your fleeting bit of fame,
I don’t care if I make the news,
or if they speak my name.”

He glanced toward the camera
and his brow began to knot,
“If you’re looking for a story,
why not give this one a shot.”

“Just tell the truth of what you see,
without the slant or spin;
that most of us are OK
and we’re coming home again.

And why not tell our folks
back home about the good we’ve done,
how when they see Americans,
the kids come at a run.”

You tell ‘em what it means
to folks here just to speak their mind,
without the fear that tyranny
is just a step behind;

Describe the desert miles
they walk in their first chance to vote,
or ask a soldier if he’s proud,
I’m sure you’ll get a quote.”

He turned and slid the rifle
in a drag bag thickly padded,
then looked again with eyes of steel
as quietly he added;

“And maybe just remind the few,
if ill of us they speak,
that we are all that stands
between the monsters and the weak.”

You see, quite frankly I don’t buy the right wing propaganda of ‘we have to fight them over there because otherwise we’ll be fighting them over here’. We have ZERO business fighting other countries’ wars, which is EXACTLY what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. We even have massive bases in Germany and other European countries left over from WWII that were used to fight the ‘Cold War’ – another ‘war’ I disagree with. We are still in Japan, also a remnant of WWII. We are still heavily patrolling the DMZ in Korea – another relic of the Korean Conflict/ Cold War. Between those bases, the various ‘peacekeeping’ missions we are STILL on, and the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, our Department of Defense has returned to its original name of Department of War. Yet the Department was NEVER meant to prosecute wars as part of entangling alliances – indeed, our Founding Fathers warned AGAINST such wars. Instead, the War/Defense Department was meant to secure our nation – which it CANNOT do at present.

But there are other issues I have with this portion of this poem, so I don’t want to get too sidetracked on DoD issues.

The poem states “You tell ‘em what it means/ to folks here just to speak their mind,/ without the fear that tyranny/ is just a step behind” – yet here in the United States of America, our freedom of speech is being increasingly infringed and monitored by the Department of ‘Homeland Security’. Yes, I’m referencing the MIAC/DHS reports a bit, which I’ve already discounted as not worth the panic that many have over them. But they ARE cause for concern, just not panic. I also point to the increasing ‘political correctness’ BS. More and more governments are beginning to regulate what you can and can’t say – even on your own private property, ala Tom’s issues with Albany’s sign ordinances.

Politicians and bureacrats at all levels are responsible for this, and THEY are the true ‘monsters’ – not those threats from without, because I believe if we pulled back our military to within our own borders, NOTHING could penetrate our borders without our consent. I truly and genuinely believe we have the strongest, most capable military on the planet, and I encourage all efforts to ensure this in perpetuity. But the ‘monsters’ we need to be worried about are politicians that think it is OK to give a tax ‘credit’ rather than simply cut the tax to begin with. The politicians that think government should provide health insurance for everyone and tax unhealthy foods to pay for it. The politicians that think government has a right to regulate adult relationships or tell a person what they can or can’t do with their own baby/child. The politicians that think it is OK for government to not allow you to make stupid decisions such as riding a motorcycle without a helmet. THOSE are the real monsters, and no military will stand against them. No, it is the people like us here at SWGA Politics, the people like the people of the Libertarian Party, Campaign for Liberty, and even the ACLU that will stand against these monsters.

WE are the ones telling the government to get the HELL out of our lives and STAY out.

WE are the ones standing between the monsters and the weak.

]]> http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/05/14/monsters-and-the-weak-a-response-to-yesterday-mornings-small-town-soapbox/feed/ 3 http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/27/southwest-ga-libertarians-general-informational-meeting/ http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/27/southwest-ga-libertarians-general-informational-meeting/#comments Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:27:10 +0000 Jeff http://swgapolitics.wordpress.com/?p=665 All are invited to attend the first General Meeting of SWGA Libertarians. This meeting will be informational in purpose, designed to allow people to meet and discuss the ideas of the Libertarian Party.

[UPDATE] Time and place: Saturday, May 2, 2009 3pm Connections Albany 1512 West Broad Avenue (next door to Family Christian Bookstore) . . . → Read More: [UPDATED] Southwest GA Libertarians General Informational Meeting]]> All are invited to attend the first General Meeting of SWGA Libertarians. This meeting will be informational in purpose, designed to allow people to meet and discuss the ideas of the Libertarian Party.

[UPDATE]
Time and place:
Saturday, May 2, 2009
3pm
Connections Albany
1512 West Broad Avenue (next door to Family Christian Bookstore)
Albany, GA

[UPDATE 2]: John Monds, who is running for Governor as a Libertarian, has confirmed he will be at our meeting!

We hope to see you there!

]]> http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/27/southwest-ga-libertarians-general-informational-meeting/feed/ 2 http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/19/presidential-campaigning-already/ http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/19/presidential-campaigning-already/#comments Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:12:55 +0000 Jeff http://swgapolitics.wordpress.com/?p=609 The newly elected President of the United States of America has been in office for less than three months – tomorrow marks his 3 month anniversary on the job – and already there is talk of who his challenger will be in the next election.

Of course, some of this is idle banter, such . . . → Read More: Presidential Campaigning ALREADY??]]> The newly elected President of the United States of America has been in office for less than three months – tomorrow marks his 3 month anniversary on the job – and already there is talk of who his challenger will be in the next election.

Of course, some of this is idle banter, such as me and Tom discussing who we’d like to see as the Libertarian in the race. (Names we’ve been discussing are mostly celebrities who are Libertarians, such as Drew Carey, Glenn Jacobs – you probably know him as Kane, Kurt Russell, and Denis Leary. Our reasoning is that the LP should focus on local level growth, and use the POTUS ticket as an attention-grabber.)

But some potential candidates are also already lining up serious backers, including Erick Erickson’s recently declared support of former Vice President Dick Cheney – a close friend – getting the GOP nomination for the race.

Also, 2008 LP Vice-Presidential nominee Wayne Allen Root was the keynote speaker at last night’s LP-Ga Convention banquet, and he readily admitted that he is already campaigning HARD to be the LP Presidential nominee in 2012. I’ll come out and say that while he was good and funny, he has a lot of work to do to convince this particular Libertarian that he should be my POTUS nominee. However, if for some weird reason he IS the LP POTUS nominee, he will have my vote because he is CLEARLY better than Obama and the GOP names I’m currently hearing being mentioned.

I’ve got to be honest here, I’m thinking it is WAY too early to start seriously thinking about the 2012 Presidential race, even for us Libertarians.

]]> http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/19/presidential-campaigning-already/feed/ 1 http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/18/the-culture-of-government/ http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/18/the-culture-of-government/#comments Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:01:40 +0000 Tom http://swgapolitics.wordpress.com/?p=605 Within the posts on this page, you will routinely see a libertarian slant, because both Jeff and I are Libertarians. I personally make no apologies for this, since talk radio is inundated with conservative leaning hosts, and TV is inundated with liberals. So, this little slice of the ‘net is for the libertarians.

Libertarians . . . → Read More: The Culture of Government]]> Within the posts on this page, you will routinely see a libertarian slant, because both Jeff and I are Libertarians. I personally make no apologies for this, since talk radio is inundated with conservative leaning hosts, and TV is inundated with liberals. So, this little slice of the ‘net is for the libertarians.

Libertarians generally want the liberty (hence the root of the word libertarian) to simply be and do, so long as it doesn’t cross that line of harming others. Simply put, we don’t want government telling us what to do. Our goal is simply a government that lets people be idiots if they want, and be self destructive if they want, but also allows them to be great.

But before our utopia can ever be realized, we must change the culture of government. That requires first starting with the people. Government will generally adhere to the demands of the people. Vietnam ended mostly because the will of the people was that it end. While there is still a great deal of oppression in this nation, it is still one where the government his beholden to the people.

People must understand several things, things which can not be stressed enough. Once enough understand it, they will join our cause and press for the changes we want. Then, the culture of government will shift forever.

1. From top down to bottom up

Currently, our government operates from a top down approach. The money flows from the federal government to state governments, then to local governments. Sure, each collects their own taxes, but the money supply maintains the flow of power in the same direction.

Instead, the government most involved in our day to day lives should be the local government. They are there for each day of our lives. Things like police and fire departments, sewers, things that can’t really be privatized (though other Libertarians may disagree, which is fine as well). Then, the state should have less impact on our day to day lives, they serve to fill the voids between towns maybe, or provide protection from a town or county becoming oppressive. The federal governments involvement should be minimal at best. Most should only rarely even think about the federal government. The United States Constitution outlines what the federal government can do. Let’s keep it there.

2. Freedoms are freedoms. An attack on one is an attack on all.

People must understand that they can not pick and choose their freedoms. An attack on any one freedom is, ultimately, an attack on all. A buddy of mine once quoted his pastor to me with the saying “No beer on Sundays means no guns on Mondays,” and he’s completely right. When a group of people decides to attack one freedom, one that they strongly dislike, then they may be opening the door on freedoms that they care about becoming the target of attack.

One example is how many members of religious groups choose to go after “sin” through legislation. Blue laws here in Georgia are just one example. Others are laws against prostitution that church groups oppose being lifted. Yet now many people are being required to act against their religions by the courts for various services, like a therapist who refused to council a lesbian woman having relationship issues. So now, even the right to practice one’s religious beliefs is under attack in this nation.

Others attack the right to carry a firearm, but now find other civil liberties under attack such as protection against unreasonable search and seizure via the PATRIOT Act. Is one the cause of the other? Absolutely not. But they are related in that inroads into one has made it easier, ultimately, to make inroads into the other. It creates a slippery slope that is best avoided.

3. Government is inept in most things

Ask yourself one question: Which house would you prefer living in, a HUD home, or a Habitat for Humanity home? The private sector routinely provides a better service than the government sector. Private charity often provides better assistance and more compassionate care for those in need than government can. The more the government stretches itself, the more it fails.

Once people understand this, the logical step is to demand that the government returns tax dollars to our pockets so we can contribute to those programs we most agree with. Free market economics will actually work in the non-profit sector just fine. If people refuse to donate to a program, then that program’s design has a clear flaw and it will die. Government can then focus on the few things they do quasi-well and we can support causes we agree with.

4. People have the power

In our representative republic, the single greatest power is that of the people. However, most don’t realize it. Sure, they know we elect people, but they forget that WE are the leaders, not them. They have forgotten it well. Remember Sanford Bishop’s comments reported by WALB (admittedly, not a direct quote) where he asked for us to trust that our leaders will be fiscally responsible?

The thing is, they aren’t our leaders, they are our representatives. WE THE PEOPLE are the leaders. They merely cast a vote on our behalf. It is their job to do our bidding, meaning that WE are the leaders-they are the followers. We must retake that position by voting out those who forget their place. And, if needs be, we can have one term representation in Congress until they get it right.

Conclusion

It is important to note that we do not need to all agree on everything for things to work well. The founding fathers didn’t agree on everything, so why should we? However, these four things must be clear in the hearts and minds of the voting populace before we have a shot. Ideas like being fiscally conservative or socially liberal just play into the idea of a purely right/left dichotomy. Instead, we must try and make clear why a libertarian society is ultimately best for everyone and what is necessary.

We must change the entire culture of government, but first we must change the entire culture. Only then can we regain our lost freedoms, and only then can we thrive as a nation.

]]> http://swgapolitics.com/index/2009/04/18/the-culture-of-government/feed/ 2