When the topic of disenfranchising American citizens comes up, it is no doubt very serious. In the last couple years, some politicians of the GOP have enacted voter ID laws, and Republicans have generally accepted this notion, despite evidence that there is little to no voting fraud.
Democrats have come out against voter ID laws, calling them discriminatory.
Should we ID?
Yes. Even though documented cases of voter fraud are minimal, voter ID should be required at the polls. In order to execute the vast majority state and federal rights, you must show proof of identification; why would voting, an exclusive right to law-abiding American citizens over the age of 18, be an exception?
Is voter ID discriminatory?
Is voter registration discriminatory? No one seems to have any quips with the current registration process, so why would they be against voter ID?
One argument I have heard for this is: It’s a choice not to register to vote. Isn’t it a choice not to have a state-issued ID, too, provided measures are in place that allow for equal opportunity?
Another argument is the obstacles for poor voters: If the issue is resources, can’t the same be said for voter registration? In order to register to vote, you must have a legal address, a driver’s license number (which is a state-issued photo ID) or a social security number. You must also have access to a computer, have the ability to show up in-person at your state’s Secretary of State office, or be qualified under the disabilities provisions or a member of the armed services to receive your registration form by other means.
Elderly: Some have pointed out that some elderly do not have access to or even have their social security numbers, and/or do not have their birth certificates to get one. Bottom line is: if you are going to exercise your right to vote, you need to be able to verify your citizenship in some way, just like you need to do for anything else. However, all efforts should be made on the part of the local government to assist the elderly in retrieving this information, so the can advantage of all benefits of citizenship.
Cost: State issued photo IDs cost money. In the case where cost is an issue, photo IDs should be provided at no cost to those who can prove hardship.
Lost ID: I am not going to come up with suggestions, but measures should be put in place, in circumstances of lost ID. No one should lose their right to vote because they misplaced or had stolen, their identification.
Transition
Some voter ID measures have been passed and implemented too quickly for registered voters to have time to comply with the new law. If voter ID is going to be passed into law, there needs to be a grace period, to give everyone a chance to get their documents in order.
Again, when dealing with the possibility of disenfranchising registered voters, every angle needs to be covered to ensure that all qualified citizens are allowed the time and resources necessary to comply.
Green with Liberty
Recently, I’ve been thinking more about energy efficiency and sustainability. As I get older, the implications are more evident, and personal responsibility becomes more relevant. Because of this, I’ve made strides to decrease my output, but in all honesty, there are still things I have not been willing to compromise on.
With Earth Day coming up, I started to wonder how the green movement plays into the liberty movement. Like all debates, there are two sides: that liberty supports the green movement, and that liberty harms the green movement.
First, we need to identify what liberty means: One has the liberty to do whatever they want, as long as their actions don’t infringe on the liberty of another.
Understanding this definition is key to the argument.
In politics today, we see liberals as the environmentally conscious and conservatives as environmentally irresponsible. Let’s look at two examples, one is on a macro scale, and the other on a micro scale:
1. Business Pollution – Conservatives are generally very pro-business, which lends itself to anti or limited regulation. They see regulations as an inefficient government bureaucracy that increases the cost and difficulty of doing business, hence, reducing job growth. Liberals are generally very pro-regulation. Using a cost-benefit analysis, they see regulations as a small price to pay for reducing our impact on the environment.
2. Light bulbs – Conservatives and libertarians were outraged this summer, when the BULB Act threatened to dictate what kind of light bulbs you are able to put in your home. Citing excessive government regulation, they rallied around this cause, and ultimately succeeded in defeating the bill.
True conservatives, who argue for the sustainability of government and natural process in economics (via laissez-faire economics), in being consistent, should also argue the same in regards to the environment. This means that they should self-regulate their own output, so as not to artificially manipulate the environment in which they operate.
Those who believe in the principles of liberty, should be mindful of its definition, and apply its philosophy to environmental issues. Liberty advocates personal responsibility as the primary regulator of one’s actions and impact on society. Logically, if one has a large carbon footprint, are wasteful, and pollute, those actions are impacting others’ liberty to live in a clean, safe, healthy environment. Which means that those who believe in liberty, should take it upon themselves to regulate their own output, as well.
Though, where is the line drawn? One’s private property? Is it the government’s responsibility to step in? If so, which level of government? How strongly? And what about the gray areas, like water and air, which have no boundaries? The easy answer: None at the federal level.
There are guidelines in the Constitution that allow federal government impose some environmental regulations. For instance, the federal government has jurisdiction over disputes between states (settled in the Supreme Court), and between businesses/individuals from two different states (settled in Federal Courts). If environmental problems run over state lines, this falls within the realm of their role.
All other potential regulations should be imposed at the state and local level. This is the Constitutional way, and it gives consumers, businesses, and property owners options. State and local governments are also more equipped to understand the environmental needs of their own area, and are positioned so that they may implement and regulate laws most effectively.
What is the biggest threat to our planet?
Ironically, the largest environmental offender is the U.S. Government. Not only are they the largest polluters, but due to immunity, they also go unregulated and unpunished. So looking to the government for environmental solutions is like asking the devil for the path to salvation; the best they can do is provide examples of how NOT to go about it.
Share with Friends
Leave a comment
Posted in Commentary, Government Overreach, Government Policy, Social Policy, Uncategorized
Tagged BULB Act, conservatism, Earth Day, energy efficiency, environmentalism, green movement, liberalism, personal responsibility, pollution, sustainability