By Chris Basten

  Just in case you weren't aware of it, 2004 is an election year. As a fairly new libertarian, I initially became excited about the opportunities that registering as a libertarian could afford me. For the first time in my life, I could be voting with excitement and anticipation for the future instead of flipping a coin and hoping I vote for the lesser of two evils. Without libertarianism as an option, I shudder to think what I would do if I saw Bush or Dean on the ballot as my only options.

However, I've come to wonder lately why I should vote at all. "You have no right to complain if you don't vote," is passé and an illogical argument. If this truly is a self-governing country, I should be able to complain all I want. Choosing to vote or not vote is irrelevant. In fact, choosing not to vote could signify that I don't want any bureaucrats in office destroying my individual rights and taxing the tar out of me. By choosing to forego my right to vote, the message would ultimately be, "I don't need no stinkin' government!"

Some Democrats, Republicans, and even a handful of Libertarians would scoff at such sentiments. What if I lose my job? What if I become permanently disabled? My answer would be, "Well, then I lose my job and I become permanently disabled." Having or not having a big government in place wouldn't change this status. Life goes on regardless of how many politicians are clucking in their high-priced suits about things they know nothing about. If I gabbed about all of my good intentions for society like bureaucrats do, I would probably worry about others losing their jobs and becoming disabled as well because I would have nothing better to do with my time. I would be forced to make it look like my services, which add nothing to the economy, are urgent to the populace that voted for me. As a politician, my whole existence as a government employee would consist of thinking of things to do with money that is not mine. If that money was suddenly available for those who actually earn it, the dollar would again gain value, people would invest without fear of what a capricious Fed would do next, and I could search for a job that has actual worth in a free-market instead of worrying about how the government will take care of me.

Money left in the hands of those who labor for it is not only smart, it is moral. A government who insists that I hand over a large portion of my earnings to do things that I don't want done with my money is robbery. What do bandits ultimately do with loot that they have seized after a hold-up? They either lust for more or they spend it on frivolous things because they have no requirement to be responsible. It's not their money so they have no qualms about spending it in any way they wish. This is Government on a cosmic scale. Instead of handkerchiefs and ski masks, the government suckers us in thousand-dollar suits with good intentions. I would almost rather vote for Jesse James; at least I would know what he wants and how he would attempt to get it. I am not so fortunate with Presidential administrations.

People who can't find jobs or who become disabled can't depend on the government anyway. Because of excessively high taxes that keep being raised to pay off the Fed's shopping sprees, barely anyone can afford to save for emergencies. Without politicians to vote for and pork barrels to keep stocked, I could use this money (that I've earned through my own effort anyway) to save for urgent situations or invest for the future with a lot more leeway. Money that I have earned to use or invest at my own discretion is a moral code worth fighting for. Taxation at government gunpoint is fascism, plain and simple. No one has a right to take away from another without their authorized consent. And yet, the government does it all the time and we refer to it as a necessary evil. Consider that this is not necessary at all and is just downright evil.

The government has done a brilliant job of marketing the idea that we should all vote. In a democracy, this requires voting for self-sufficiency and self-governing principles. Politicians don't think this way and almost never promote government shrinkage so that we can learn how to take care of ourselves and reap what we sow in life. They speak repeatedly about the best way to spend our money (which they have forced from us without our permission) or about how to increase the number of politicians to vote for so that more people can serve you. The government thinks it has the duty to save you from all of the stupid decisions you make or all of the bumps and bruises that life tosses your way. I have news for you: No one owes you anything, especially an irresponsible, bloated government. If government is an unnecessary evil that owes you nothing, why should you owe the government anything in return, especially your vote?

So when November of 2004 rolls around, think carefully about the right to vote. Don't just think about a party candidate or platform. Think also about the process of voting itself. Sure, voting serves a noble purpose that allows the citizens to decide what they want out of their leaders. But think about what you are actually voting for. Does not the vote ensure that you need the government to take care of you and decide what to do with money that you have worked very hard for? Does not the vote relay a message to politicians that we think highly of them and want them meddling in our business for "our own good?" Does not the vote basically send the covert message that your life is not your own and belongs to the masses that you must help take care of regardless of their responsibility (or lack thereof)? Problems, disasters, and financial difficulties will initially ensue if we tell the government that we no longer need it but humans are a resilient species. We are perfectly capable of managing our own lives and are much better off when left free to our own devices. See if you can find this statement as an option on a ballot the next time you vote.