On Government
Aidan Gardiner

In 2003 the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Mrs. Wilson, was leaked to and published in Time magazine. It soon came to light that the leak came from within the White House. The President pledged to fire the source of the leak. Press secretary Scott McLelan made a point of letting the press know that the source of the leak was not the President’s chief strategist and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. Two years later, however, Mr. Rove’s own lawyer released the statement that it was, in fact, Mr. Rove who unmasked the field agent. The press jumped on the news and began questioning the White House, asking if Mr. McLelan had said two years prior. The press continued on this line of questioning until the question was asked, “Does the White House have a credibility problem? … I’m not talking about just this investigation but also, say, WMD’s.”
Upon hearing this story, I myself began to question the White House. Not only did I question the White House but also the nature of government and the role of those being governed. Why was I angered by the lack of truth coming from my government? Is it even the government’s responsibility to give truth? Why would Mr. Rove leak the identity of a CIA undercover agent in the first place? All of these questions lead me to one conclusion:
All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it’s foundation on such principals, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

It is and should be the goal of a government to perpetuate itself, but this in the end should not be it’s ultimate goal because this in the end would lead to the abandonment of the people depriving them of their rights. Mr. Rove leaked Mrs. Wilson’s identity after her husband wrote an article criticizing the administrations claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear armament, which at the time was a key driving force in the push for the war in Iraq. Mr. Rove sought to silence Mr. Wilson and therefore perpetuate the White House’s cause.
Relating to the previous statement, it is equally my belief that order is necessary, but in order for order to exist there must be the threat of disorder, which in run also makes for a more perfect order. Dissent against a government forces the government to mold to the needs of the dissenting. If it then alienates others the government should mold to both groups. Dissent makes a more perfect government and thus to say your government is doing ill is in the end not unsupportive and unpatriotic but rather patriotic to the highest degree. This is partly why terrorism has a 100% failure rate. The attacks of September eleventh did not dishearten or defeat the United States but in the end made us more unified. When groups such as terrorists have such goals as abolishing a government, there is no way for the government to then adhere to their needs and therefore there is no need to. The United States is founded on the principal of dissent. When we are dissatisfied with whom we are being governed we reserve the right to expunge them from office. I read a quote in the Examiner from a senator or congressman that said, “Anyone who disagrees with their government is by definition a terrorist.” This infuriated me. If this man’s quote were true, that would mean anyone running against the current party in an election would be a terrorist creating a fascist dictatorship.

If a man is lying on the street looking at death with no money social darwanism will not pick him up. To ensure the welfare of it’s people the government should be there, a safety net of sorts for it’s people, regardless of whether they help their government or not, should the people want it. Homeless are not homeless because they’ve chosen a lifestyle. If they had, they would not beg for money to survive. To walk by and say, “get a job” places impossibility on someone who is not able to even face an impossible deed. When someone is locked in their house, laying on their bed in a cold sweat for days without food, looking for help he should be able to find it without having to rely on a dream. The “American dream” is only that, a dream. Some may, but not all are able to climb the rungs to prosperity and often those who are unable need help, and anyone who is unwilling to pay taxes for such a cause is selfish and greedy. Healthcare is not a privilege of the wealthy but a right of the people in order to ensure their lives, the liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Marriage is a sacred bond of love between two people. On that, anyone who wishes to wed should be allowed to do so with whomever they wish. Nobody has any say as to whether or not the union should be prohibited or not. The marriage is between two consenting people (who believe themselves to be in love with the other). Gay marriage does not destroy the sanctity of marriage. It does not open the door to bizarre marriages between small boys and old men. It does not provide an open door for the marriage of people to inanimate objects or other animals. Not allowing someone to marry is to infringe on ones right to pursue happiness.

The option for abortion should be available for all who need it. It is not a decision to be made by politicians who will never give birth themselves but rather a woman faced with a life changing decision. In the case of abortion it’s necessary to utilize the utilitarian philosophy. If a child is born to two people who are not ready to have it, the parents and the child’s lives are at risk. There is even the grave possibility of the child’s death due to gross negligence on the parents’ part. This is not to advocate the killing of every child that is to be born, nor is it to promote sexual activity among irresponsible adolescents, it is to provide the option because pro-choice analogous to pro-life.

Kill all terrorists. When someone straps a bomb to their chest in order to kill hundreds of people his cause is lost in the mayhem. He becomes evil. He is not a martyr but rather a fanatic with complete disregard for human life. However, I believe that they are to be treated as any other citizen prior to their acts, with the same rights. Until they break the threshold they have every right to privacy as we have ourselves. In that split instant before the pressing of a button they may reconsider.
Every citizen has the right to privacy. Until it can be proven that they are a criminal without invading their privacy they are to be treated as anyone else would be treated.

To be a citizen it is required that you not be docile and complaisant but rather active and educate oneself. To be active in government is to ensure the well being of yourself and others around you. To be docile and complaisant is to provide fertile ground for the government to prevent you from life, liberty, and your pursuit of happiness.