The Saga Continues: “Extremism is No Vice”

This has all the markings of a fifteen-rounder, Save Jerseyans.  Rest assured, I’m not one to back away from heated political topics. Mr. Glading: prepare for the second half of round two, and I’m coming out swinging!

In 1964 an actor threw his hat into the political fray for the first time.  Ronald Reagan, a newly converted Republican would take the stage and deliver a speech entitled, “A Time for Choosing.”  This majestic speech was crafted on behalf of Arizona Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater.

When Goldwater accepted the Republican Nomination, he delivered one of the lines that dictates my personal political ideology:

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

The freedom of conscience is one with which we are all born.  The decision of whether or not to vote falls under this category.  You are not born with the right to vote, but you are born with a conscience and a mouth to make your voice heard.

Voting may not be a “natural right” but the decision-making process leading up to the individual’s decision to vote is a natural right.  Any government intrusion into this decision-making process should frighten Tea Party members like Mr. Glading and I.  Looking to the government for a solution does not fly in my book.

In Mr. Glading’s response to my last post opposing civics tests for voters, he references the origins of voting in the United States, when the franchise itself was exclusively by landowners as was the Founding Fathers’ seemingly collective desire.  They were great men. They were also, however, products of their age.  They preached a message of individual liberty.  While they didn’t always live up to their own ideals, their message is timeless all the same.  Natural rights and a small, limited national government constituted the path which our country was to follow.  Isn’t placing limits on the voting franchise “big government” in of itself?

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.  I make this argument not just in the discussion of freedom of conscience but also from an economic perspective.

Let me explain. Individuals have the right to make their own decisions whether they be right or wrong.  People also know before getting behind the wheel of a car if they are prepared to enter the world of driving.  We don’t need a government to dictate to us whether or not we are prepared.  Citizens also know that every time they step into the driver’s side door of a vehicle their life is effectively in their own hands.  They will act in their own best interest.  If they do not feel up to the responsibility, then they will not drive more often than not. If they do anyway, then they assum that risk and the results are on their conscience.

Decisions have consequences, Save Jerseyans.

When it comes to the economic side of the decision, individuals spend a good deal of money on their transportation.  Vehicles are expensive, their upkeep, the gas, state-mandated insurance policy, etc. all expenses tied to owning, leasing, or having an automobile.  So yes, driving is also an economic decision.  If you are inexperienced as a driver, you take an inherent financial risk.  Your premiums could go up, your car could need repairs, could be irreparably damaged, or you may be repeatedly ticketed.  Drivers must recognize these clear and present responsibilities every time they get into a car.

The decision to vote has a relationship to natural rights and, in turn, forms an economic balance with them.  Voters should be more educated when entering the booth.  Anyone can tell you that! However, I refuse to let someone make that decision for me or anyone else.  That, my friends, takes us one step closer on a path which the Founders never wanted us to explore… the one that leads to tyranny.

Liberty, freedom, and elections have risks. We should spend more time attempting to educate the voter rather than trying to take away his or her right of conscience. How can they learn if we think for them?

When it comes to making decisions, I’ll take the individual every day of the week and twice on Sundays before I trust the state.

 

2 Comments

  1. Can I just say what a reduction to seek out someone who really knows what theyre talking about on the internet. You positively know how to deliver a problem to light and make it important. Extra people must learn this and understand this facet of the story. I cant consider youre not more standard because you positively have the gift.

  2. "That, my friends, takes us one step closer on a path which the Founders never wanted us to explore… the one that leads to tyranny." – The implication that the founders would be against a limited franchise is patently false. The founding fathers instituted a system of franchise limited, in the main, to landed white males. Our forefathers were against universal suffrage, moreover as they wrote in the constitution Senators were not even directly elected, rather they were further away from the changing moods of a then very limited electorate and chosen by the state governments. Is this tyranny? Was this a stolen right? Of course not. Hyperbole is easier than fact, but no excuse for the lack of them. Get it together Save, this piece was horridly written and poorly thought out.

Comments are closed.