Citizens and legislators of Maine, take note: The decision about whether to grant the Washington County town of Cooper the right to deorganize may seem a tempest in a teapot, but it will have consequences that extend far beyond the woods and waters of that little town, and it will say much about the values of all Mainers.

Cooper submitted its deorganization plan to the State and Local Government Committee of the state Legislature last spring. The stalwarts who had served the town faithfully as its officers for years were looking to lay down the burden of government they had carried for so long, and many in town were hoping that their taxes would be greatly reduced if Cooper joined the unorganized territories. The State and Local Government Committee put a temporary hold on the process, charging Cooper to find alternate ways to meet the challenges of governing the town and reducing the costs that lead to its high mill rate.

In January, Cooper officials will testify before the committee concerning the progress that has been made. The good news is that the prospect of losing their local democratic institutions has galvanized other Cooper citizens to come forward and ensure the continuation of town government. The bad news is that the town has not been able to significantly reduce its ongoing expenses.

Considering that a full slate of officers is ready to take over at the next election, it might seem that the proposal to deorganize is now dead. By statute a vote of a two-thirds majority of the town voters is required to finalize deorganization, and more than a third of the voters in Cooper have signed a petition against it. But a faction in town continues to actively press for deorganization, still hoping to reduce property taxes. This faction will demand that the Legislature grant Cooper residents the right to vote on deorganization.

The wisest option for the Legislature is to refuse this authorization. No one knows what vagaries of fate might affect the election, especially when the decision is likely to rest on the vote of one or two citizens. And this refusal would not only be expedient, it would be appropriate on moral grounds as well. The legislators should look squarely at the larger moral issues that give statewide significance to what is admittedly a local squabble in a minor town in Maine’s poorest county.

First: Are the residents of Cooper so extraordinary that they deserve tax relief of which other citizens of Maine cannot avail themselves? I myself know that other Maine residents would laugh at the taxes my wife and I pay on our house, barn, nine acres and deeded lake access. If Cooper residents are granted extraordinary relief, what moral bulwark will the Legislature have against other towns where citizens are willing to give up their local responsibilities to save on tax bills?

Second: There is a principle inherent in our governmental system, like it or not, by which everyone is subject to the economic realities of the marketplace. If you live in a desirable location that increases in value because of our market economy, you have to pay the price for living there, and pay it in rising taxes. That is merely a fact of our free-market system. Cooper has a beautiful lake, one of the clearest in Maine; its property values are headed up, and there is no stopping that.

Those who try to dodge that reality by giving up their identity as a town and merging themselves into the larger state bureaucracy are trying to claim an exemption from the free market; they are in effect opting for socialism. On these grounds then, my plea to the members of the state Legislature would be, If you are for capitalism and free-market economics, then vote against the deorganization of Cooper as a matter of principle.

Third: The people who are in favor of deorganizing Cooper are indisputably intent on giving up local democracy in favor of central governmental control. There is no way of pretending otherwise. Again, I say to the Legislature: If you are for big government, then vote to deorganize Cooper; but if you see big, centralized government as a potential threat to the people’s rights, vote against deorganization.

The fourth of these moral issues is downright silly. Talk in town suggests that one of the arguments of the deorganization party will be that they are being “deprived of their right to vote on the issue.” This is a moral absurdity. These are the people who are trying to forfeit all their local rights, including their right to vote in local governmental affairs. How cogent is their argument that they are being denied the right to vote on giving up their right to vote? And it is not only their own rights that they are urgently trying to surrender, but that of others, including all future generations in Cooper. How can we take seriously their protests that they are being denied their right to deprive others of their rights for all time?

The fifth moral objection is, by contrast, the most serious of all. Maine men and women have been risking their lives to bring democracy to Iraq for several years. We may question why the federal government has led us into this war, but we cannot doubt the dedication of the soldiers who are fighting in it. When they return home, which of us wants to tell them that while they were putting their lives on the line for democracy in a foreign land, we ourselves were not even willing to sacrifice a few hundred dollars to preserve democracy at home? Which of you legislators wants to greet them with the news that you voted to dismantle democracy here? Which citizen of Cooper wants to tell such a soldier that dollars are worth more to us than democracy?

I say that if we truly believe in democracy, the divided little town of Cooper is the first place we should stand up for it.

Stuart Shotwell, of Cooper, is a self-employed trans-lator, writer and editor.