The Liberty of Voting and Driving

Dale Glading fell hook, line, and sinker for the bait I left him in my article defending the right of each individual to determine whether they’re qualified to vote, Save Jerseyans. By leaving the door slightly ajar, I knew he would swing blindly away at an opinion I hold yet left widely undefined.  I was letting him see an opening that doesn’t really exist.  This is the political blogging version of the rope-a-dope.

Before I begin my official retort, I have to say that I expected attacks on my age from opposing viewpoints but not by way of friendly fire.  I can stand my views being criticized; what I will not stand for is my views being discounted for lack of and I quote, “real-world experience.” If anything, my youthful creativity has allowed me to innovate new ways to limit government interference in our lives!  I’m a believer in the individual and of every individual’s natural rights.

In your original article arguing for mandatory civics tests, Dale, your espoused goal was to keep the uninformed from voting in our elections.  I find this to violate a “right of conscience.”  As an individual, you have the right to make up your own mind to cast a vote for whomever you wish.  You are granted this right at the age of eighteen.  The way it stands right now is how it should be.

This is a difficult pill to swallow so get a teaspoon full of sugar to help it go down.  People get a say in their government in this country whether you think they should or not.  Uninformed people have the same rights as you.  Liberty has consequences and that means people can vote even if they are uninformed. Looking to the government to create better citizens is the antithesis of conservatism.  Smaller government and more personal responsibility is what we believe in.  As conservative Republicans, we should focus on better educating the voters rather than turning them away from the democratic process.

Now onto this whole driver’s license analogy business.  Have you punched yourself out, Foreman?  As you’ll recall in my most recent column, I stated:

Dale then goes on to discuss driver’s licenses and whether or not we should trust individuals to regulate themselves and decide if they are personally competent drive.  I would say yes.  Although I recognize the state’s prerogative to issue driver’s licenses (and I agree with them on some grounds, definitely not all) I don’t find them entirely necessary to the driving process.

The argument that followed was designed to highlight the similarities between voting and getting a driver’s license. I support the idea of a driver’s license in general; if an individual would like to get a state issued driver’s license in an effort to lower his or her insurance costs, that would be fine with me.  If a high risk driver is asked to complete the process to receive a driver’s license as part of their rehabilitation, I’d approve of that.  The system as it is currently constructed is flawed.

Your first example of the ten-year-old driving around because of a lack of government restriction is foolish.  Where would the ten-year-old get a car?  How would they afford it?  How would they pay for gas?  If anything in this instance we would see a definite case of child endangerment that would punishable under any society.  No parent in their right mind would allow a child to continuously drive a vehicle.  It puts them in danger.

When it comes to the elderly and their declining skills as drivers, the families should have the decency to discuss these issues between them.  While the conversation may be hard, the family should be more involved than the government.  If the family refuses to discuss the issue with the individual and they prove to be a threat to other citizen’s natural rights, than they should be a part of the aforementioned high-risk group. The government should not get involved except as a last alternative.

We all experience bad drivers every single day that we are behind the wheel.  How would that change if the driver’s license was made into an optional device?  Parents would not let their children behind the wheels of cars they own when the risk of damage is high.  They may also seek their children getting a state issued license just to put their mind at ease if they’d like.  But I am not just here to pick and choose at the extreme cases you have decided to lay out in front of me.

This goes on to help the everyday Joe Six Pack.  How many times have individuals gone to the DMV (or in our case the MVC) to get jammed for $20 just to get their license renewed?  This is more money out of your pocket!  Count that twenty over a forty year period just between 25 and 65 years of age and that can be a potential savings of $200.

With less individuals going through the government’s doors, the cost of running the MVC will shrink.  Less government workers, less government waste, and most importantly lower taxes as a result.

I’m uncomfortable with government monopolies the same way I’m uncomfortable with the government coming in between me and the ballot box.  Government’s primary role is to ensure the rights of the individual to think for themselves are not denied or artificially stunted.  The rights of one person end where the rights of another person begin.

I may have views further out on the libertarian spectrum than you do, Mr. Glading, but to dismiss them because of my age is insulting.  Almost as inappropriate as you declaring victory before getting a response.  The fat lady hasn’t even begun to warm up.