Michael, as always I appreciate the sincerity and civility of your argument against civic testing for American voters. I really do. However, once again, your premise is faulty and your reasoning demonstrates a lack of real-world experience.
NO ONE said that a person’s freedom of conscience should be violated. You are setting up a straw man when you imply that.
There is a difference between guaranteeing a person’s freedom of conscience and granting them the privilege of casting a ballot. The former is personal whereas the later affects other people, sometimes on a grand scale.
Now let’s move on to your surprisingly irrational position on issuing driver’s licenses. My friend, in an effort to appear libertarian you have painted yourself into a corner where you are forced to make an indefensible and almost comical argument.
One that has potentially deadly consequences…
Do you REALLY believe that people should be allowed to determine at what age and proficiency level they are ready to climb behind the wheel of a car? If that were the case, 10-year olds who can’t even see above the dashboard could become licensed drivers.
Oh, that’s right, you don’t think they should need a license at all in order to steer a two-ton machine down the highway at life-threatening speeds.
And it’s not just inexperienced pre-teens I would be worried about. Having worked at a retirement community for almost 11 years, I can tell you for a fact that elderly drivers who are no longer able to navigate traffic safely are not always ready to hand over their car keys. But you seem to think that people who “don’t feel up to the responsibility, will not drive more often than not.”
Welcome to the real world, brother. The one where people die because of other people’s flawed evaluations of their own abilities.
Michael, you actually made my argument for me when you said that every time a driver steps into a vehicle their life is effectively in their own hands. But so are the lives of others, which is exactly why a certain level of driving proficiency must be required. And the only way to determine that is by testing.
As for your economic argument, you again helped my cause and damaged your own. Accidents caused by poor drivers raise everyone’s insurance premiums – and medical bills, too – not just those of the party at fault.
Finally, you summarize your position by stating that “decisions have consequences.” That’s exactly the point, Michael. Allowing a person who fails to demonstrate a simple and rudimentary knowledge of American civics before they register to vote – or a basic proficiency behind the wheel before they are issued a driver’s license – is naïve and irresponsible. Both actions have potentially serious consequences…not just for the voter or the driver, but for others as well.
And that, sir, is the point – make that the “match point” – you continue to miss.
Just how do the Russians feel concerning being the opposing/terrorist team in video games?