For 15 jurisdictions, today is your first chance to cast a vote in the 2020 presidential election. Of course, it’s not quite that easy if you are not supporting one of the two old parties. For Libertarians in these 14 states and American Samoa, the rules are not all the same. For some, participating in the primary will disqualify them from participating in their Libertarian convention process (heads up Texas, DO NOT VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES if you want to vote in your Libertarian convention). For other states, the convention process is done, and you can sit back today. (We’re talking about you Arkansas, Alabama, and Tennessee). Other states still have conventions coming up (so make sure you know the details, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Utah, Vermont and Virginia). Finally, some states do include Libertarians in the primaries and you can get out and vote today (hopefully you already knew this, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Oklahoma).
Whether you are voting today, waiting for your state convention, or still trying to decide what to do, we’re here to help. In honor of the 15 different groups of voters trying to figure out what to do today, here are…
1. The Libertarian Party is the only anti-war party.
You cannot count on Democrats to end the wars — they have been every bit to blame as the Republicans. While in the midst of trying to impeach President Trump, a bi-partisan Congress approved a military budget of over $700 billion. Neither old party has any intention to ease up or end our military interactions. If you are ready for an America at Peace, it’s time to vote Libertarian. 2. The Libertarian Party is the only party committed to eliminating the national debt. Republicans have long been considered the anti-debt party, but that can only be laughed at now. After eight years of calling out President Obama’s reckless spending and increased deficits, they have been silent and/or outright supportive of Trump’s explosive spending that has taken our national debt from $19 trillion to $23 trillion in three years. If an annual deficit of $1 trillion dollars is unacceptable to you, your best move is to vote Libertarian. 3. The only way to stop more government overreach is to vote for the Libertarian Party. Increased taxation for “free” college is promised by the Democrats; tariffs (which are taxes) and bailouts are executed by Republicans. Both old parties are inching or running toward single-payer healthcare, more gun control and granting the executive branch more and more power. The only choice for those who care about personal and economic liberty, separate from the boot of big government, is the Libertarian party. 4. The only way to send a message to the ruling old parties is to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Once again, the only alternative party that will be on every ballot in the 2020 general election is the Libertarian Party. A vote for Trump sends the message that nothing needs to change. A vote for any of the Democratic candidates likely to get the nomination is a message that nothing they do needs to change either. We currently have more people choosing not to vote for anyone than to pick one of the options the Rs or Ds serve up, and that does nothing to wake up these power-hungry politicians. If your hope is to see better candidates coming from any party, the only way to send that message is to scare those who rule over us by voting Libertarian. 5. Libertarian policies benefit everyone, and they get adopted the more voters show support for such things. It seems hard to believe that the Democratic party was officially still against same-sex marriage less than a decade ago. The Libertarian Party has supported equal rights (and removing the government from marriage) since its founding in 1971. Both parties are still waffling on if people who chose to use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes should go to prison. Many states have changed their laws, while federally some lawmakers are looking to add vaping as a crime. The Libertarian party has supported individual liberty (and no victim, no crime) since its founding in 1971. The liberty movement does affect the public view of issues and eventually leads to better policies. If you want to see more Libertarian policies adopted by old party representatives, you show them that by voting Libertarian. 6. You don’t want to have to spend the next four years explaining why the dumpster fire you supported was not as bad as the dumpster fire someone else supported. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still attaching your name to something evil. It sucks. Don’t do it. Vote Libertarian. 7. Because you “Support the Troops”. Democrats and Republicans both like to act like they are moral patriots who value nothing more than the brave men and women who serve their county. Truth is, they are lying. If they really cared about the troops, they would never flippantly start a new war, they wouldn’t refuse to do their job to vote on military action, and they would certainly spend much more time talking about the 22 veterans a day who commit suicide. War is a failure on every level, and we fail our service men and women once they return home. Do you support the troops, really? So does the Libertarian Party. 8. Consistent Principles only exist in the Libertarian Party. We already mentioned the Democrats’ evolution on rights for gay people only when it became politically beneficial to them. Republicans say they support your Second Amendment rights, until Trump says we need to limit that a bit. Both old parties jump around on which personal decisions they will allow and which they will criminalize. In their histories, the ruling parties have changed their principles drastically. The Libertarian Party platform has held consistent values of individual liberty since it was first written in 1971. Do you want to know that the party you support is going to hold to the values you supported them for? Your party is the Libertarian Party. 9. The Libertarian Party supports ending harmful election laws and opening up the ballot for other parties too. Perhaps you feel that another party best represents your views, but they do not have ballot access. Republicans and Democrats write the very laws that keep alternative parties off the ballot or using all of their resources to get on the ballot. Libertarians believe the duopoly has to be defeated if we will ever see real and meaningful changes in this country. A vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for allowing more candidates and more parties of future ballots, and an end to the ruling parties ability to force you to choose between two terrible candidates. 10. The Libertarian Party is the most welcoming to immigrants and refugees. If you believe children should never, ever be separated from their parents and held in government custody for crossing a political border, you can be sure that the Libertarian Party agrees with you. Democrats and Republicans will continue to argue over miniscule changes - the Libertarian Party will end this insane and dysfunction humanitarian crisis by legalizing the free movement of peaceful people. 11. Because you do not want to live in a {insert religion here} theocracy. Libertarians believe that everyone should be able to hold faith and religion as important or irrelevant to their life as each chooses and that the government should never propose policies or laws based on the support or opposition of any religion. 12. To get money out of politics. It’s funny how often you hear Democrats talk about getting money out of politics, while they promise to pay for college, healthcare, retirement, childcare, and on and on. That is every bit “money in politics” as corporations and lobbyists writing huge checks. Libertarians want to return the executive branch to the limits our Founders intended — that means removing the authority to make such false promises, either to special interest groups or the general public. 13. You support Free Speech — for everyone. Both old parties will talk about their commitment to the First Amendment, but in practice, both have proven willingness to limit free speech that they do not appreciate or agree with. Libertarians believe that if you don’t support free speech for everyone then you don’t support free speech. 14. Reject Nationalism and Socialism with one vote. There are two broken ideologies threatening liberty in our nation today, and they are coming from both major parties. Reject the inhumanities we know come from these authoritarian philosophies, and support liberty instead. 15. Libertarians do not seek power - they seek a world set free. Republicans and Democrats continue to fight over which one best knows how you should live your life. Libertarians know that they best thing for individual humans is to be free to live their life without the approval of any political party. Can you think of anymore? No matter which one of these reasons rings the truest for you, remember that when you go to vote. Even if you are not voting today, you can still cast a vote for liberty, fiscal responsibility, human rights, and integrity by supporting the party of principle. We are proud and honored to be the voice for freedom in America today. Donate to the Libertarian Party Today! "Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day." MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
0 Comments
Today’s new video reveals how an ABC Good Morning America Breaking News Anchor, and 20/20 Co-Anchor had significant information regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged crimes years ago but was told by her superiors that the network would not run the story.
Some of the key findings of today’s video: · Amy Robach Describes How a Witness Came Forward Years Ago With Material Against Epstein: “She Had Pictures, She Had Everything. She Was in Hiding for Twelve Years. We Convinced Her to Come Out. We Convinced Her to Talk to Us. Um, it Was Unbelievable What We Had.” Robach: “We Had Her Whole Allegations About Prince Andrew…” “I Got a Little Concerned About Why I Couldn't Get On.” Robach Details ABC’s Initial Response to Her Acquiring This Material: “Um, First of All, I Was Told, Who's Jeffrey Epstein? No One Knows Who That is. This is a Stupid Story.” Robach: “…It Was Unbelievable What We Had - Clinton, We Had Everything. I Tried for Three Years to Get it on to No Avail. And Now it's All Coming Out and it's like These New Revelations and I Freaking Had All of it” Robach Discards the Possibility of Epstein’s Cause of Death as Suicide in Prison: “…So Do I Think He Was Killed? 100% Yes” Robach Repeats a Statement from Attorney Brad Edwards on Camera,” …There Will Come a Day When We Will Realize Jeffrey Epstein Was the Most Prolific Pedophile This Country Has Ever Known,” Adding, “I Had It All Three Years Ago.” Support Project Veritas here. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Start at EXPOSE CNN Part One here.
Some of the key findings of today’s video: • Rick Saleeby, Senior Producer of The Lead with Jake Tapper, States Steve Brusk, CNN Politics Supervising Producer, Made ‘Advances’ on Female Employees During ‘Social Gatherings’ and Would “Put His Arm Around Them, Try and Touch Their Leg.” • Saleeby Believes That Steve Brusk is “Protected by Certain People…Like Other Higher Ups” Within CNN. • Rick Saleeby Recalls Incident with a Young Female Colleague: “She Had a Skirt on. I Could See the Hand. I Like Grab Her. It Looked Like I Was Being the Assaulter Because I Grabbed Her So Aggressively…to Keep Her from Him.” • Saleeby: “He Had Already Been Accused of the Things Prior… Which I Found Out…” • Saleeby Acknowledges the Gravity of the Situation: “I’ll Tell You This, In the Climate That’s Going Now, He Definitely Would Have Been Fired.” • Nick Neville, Media Coordinator at CNN, Says It is “Open Knowledge” That a Female Colleague Got a Job Working with Steve Brusk That “Appeared Out of Nowhere,” “…It Was Never Posted Online…” • Neville Refers to Allegedly Untoward Behavior from Brusk With the Young Female Employee: “…I Mean, He Emails All of Us, But He Would Email and Was Very Friendly to Her. And Then She Just Like Got a Job Like Working on His Team and She Was Like, Oh, It’s Hush-Hush. The Job Was Never Posted Anywhere.” • Neville: “…I Just Thought It Was a Little Strange.” • Christian Sierra, Media Coordinator at CNN, Continues: “That’s Unethical…That’s Unethical.” • Steve Brusk Tells Project Veritas Journalists to Speak with CNN’s PR Team About Sexual Misconduct Allegations; When Approached in DC, Refuses to Watch Footage. • Rick Saleeby and Jake Tapper Refuse to Speak with Project Veritas Journalists in DC When Approached for Comment. • Project Veritas Calls CNN President Jeff Zucker’s Office for Comment on Last Week’s Multiple Releases Regarding Anti-Trump Bias in the Network; Zucker’s Administrative Assistant Replies: “We Don’t Have Any Comment, Thanks for Calling.” Support the whistleblower here. Support Project Veritas here. How much longer will CNN’s parent company, AT&T, allow Zucker, and CNN, to refrain from commenting on what has been uncovered? The public has a right to know AT&T’s official position. Will you demand a response from AT&T and CNN? Here is how: AT&T Phone Number: (210) 821-4105 Warner Media/CNN Phone Number: (404)827-1700 Without CNN Insider Cary Poarch, the American people wouldn’t have known about any of this information. MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
Nicholas Sarwark appeared on Dave Smith's Part of the Problem podcast this week following the debate between them on Gene Epstein's Soho Forum. The podcast is embedded below.
The exchange begins respectfully between the two and it only really breaks down when they begin discussing what each describes as the #1 issue facing America and the Libertarian Party. Sarwark believes this to be "Racism" while Dave Smith believes it's "Foreign Policy / The War State". This is when things get heated. Sarwark argues that President Trump's Wall on the southern border is racist because it disproportionately affects Mexicans, who have brown skin, and not Canadians who are white. For simplicity, we'll ignore the other implications of the southern wall for now (ie., open borders, the movement of drugs that exist in the south which isn't a problem on the northern border). He also notes that President Trumps “Muslim Ban“ was racist because the people in those countries are brown skinned, even if, admittedly, not all countries on the list were Muslim, nor were all Muslim countries added. He even claims that the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville during the "Unite the Right" protest is proof that racism exists and that it is more important than the death of thousands overseas. Dave Smith pushes back against this well moral inequivalence, but my focus is on something different. At this point, Nick Sarwark doesn’t understand his own contradiction. Who are we at war with? The bombs that we drop, who dies when they explode? If, very overwhelmingly, we are only killing brown people isn’t our foreign policy just as racist as the Wall? Isn't it just as racist as the Muslim ban? Is our foreign policy only killing Norwegians? Or is it killing brown people in the Middle East? Nick, if you want to stay consistent please keep beating the drum against these policies that overwhelmingly affect minorities. Your conversation regarding our failed justice system because it inordinately affects minorities is ON POINT. Take that point to its logical conclusion though. Our foreign policy also disproportionately affects minorities. And by “affect“ I mean it kills them, ruins families, eliminates entire family trees, destroys cities, introduces famine, and also just happens to executed with OUR tax money. The episode ended well with a dual call from Nicholas Sarwark and Dave Smith for people to join the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party isn’t just made up of people who talk about liberty on the Internet, quite the opposite. Libertarian party is made up of those who actually show up. Show up. Oust Nicholas Sarwark. Principles over Party.
FREE BITCOIN! When you buy $100 Bitcoin through this link, you'll earn $10 of FREE Bitcoin! (IMMEDIATE 10% ROI!)
MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
My faith in humanity has been restored.
Typically, when you talk about politics on Facebook, your chances of getting cancer go up exponentially. It counter intuitive, actually. You'd think people would not go out of their way to publicly prove their political ignorance in such a public forum. But you'd be wrong. C-SPAN publicly asked it's followers a simple question, "Your ideas to streamline federal government?" I expected the common political drivel involving the use of force to punish your political enemies. Jail the Democrats, Jail the Republicans, etc. Instead they hit a vein that goes beyond Left-Right Politics. People want smaller government and government that is effective and not wasteful. For example: "Shut down 80% of the federal departments. Set up GoFundMe pages and allow people to give their dollars to programs they value, voluntarily." "Stop taxing us for more services than defense. The federal government's only job is to protect us from threats. Not buy up land, regulate business, hand out entitlements, etc. That is the state's job. Enact term limits and prosecute politicians when they commit felonies, espionage, etc. " "Pare back to just the essential duties outlined in the constitution, leave the rest to the states, and you'll reduce it by 75%." "Actually this is an idea stated in jest by Ben Shapiro, but I think it might work - bring our representatives and senators back home to their districts/states to actually live with their families/constituents and face the consequences of their decisions with those they are supposed to be representing. They can vote with an app. They do everything else with one. That would end hired lobbying, make the legislative branch, at least, truly accountable, and clean out the swamp big time" "Fire half the federal employees, do away with the Department of Education, the Energy Department, The Airport screeners. If you're working for the Federal Government and you're classified as non-essential you shouldn't be there!!!" "Pass a constitutional amendment that specifically says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. Oh wait never mind it’s already in the bill of rights. So let’s just follow the constitution then." "Get rid of 75% of the agencies, Dept of Education, BLM, EPA, etc. Cut back IRS and tax laws and make it an agency that provides tax advice and helps people know how to pay taxes, House and Senate have six months each year to get the job done (no lifetime salaries and benefits)...then they have to go home and are subject to the same laws and benefits all citizens have to live by. Supreme Court Justices must retire at the age of 75 or sooner if they fall asleep during hearings." "No more increases in military budget until the Pentagon can fully account for the trillions of dollars it has "lost". Congressional pay should be reduced to the average income of the state that each Representative and Senator represents. Drop all health care coverage for Senators and Representatives. Shutter ICE. End corporate welfare, using the savings to ensure solvency for both Social Security and Medicare. Oh, make it illegal for Senators and Representatives to work for lobbyists and enact term limits for Senators and Representatives (3 terms in Senate, 6 terms in the House)." "Stop the congressional lifetime pay check and benefits. (Congressional welfare...)They have all become millionaires....they don't need the lifetime pay check. Give some of that money to our disabled veterans." "The government has specific powers and duties under the constitution. Bring it back to the original purpose to serve the people. It was this way in its writing to prevent exactly what it has come to now, a cash cow of corruption to those in DC" "1. Congress passes a law making it illegal for federal employees to collectively bargain or lobby. Bureaucracies use political power to grow themselves. 2. Get rid of the federal retirement system and replace it with 401K or some other portable pension. High wages and early pensions draw slackers and keep non-performers and mediocre performers on the job. 3. Immediately cut 15% of federal positions. Agency directors and supervisors have no financial incentive to reduce payroll. Conversely, an easy way to currently justify a promotion in the federal system is to add subordinates, not to produce results. Forced to do the job with fewer employees, supervisors would be forced to get rid of the dead wood. 4, Substantial cash incentives paid to federal employees who discover ways to improve efficiency. 5. Congress passes balanced budget and creates law requiring all future budgets to balance. 6. Abolish Department of Education and return education management to states." "Eliminate all government pensions, move half of our military bases off foreign soil, make food stamps (EBT) only used for basic foods (ground meat, oatmeal, etc), simplify law (as opposed to exponentiation) and enforce diligently such as "run from the police in a motor vehicle: 5 years minimum in jail, privatize what is failing (ie schools, prisons), and legalize anything involving consent (drugs, prostitution, etc)." Faith in humanity restored, indeed! Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot Here is something to think about with the whole immigration debate:
I worked closely with really good local national Afghans who risked their lives in Afghanistan for 5-8 years waiting on approval to get a special Visa to come to America. They embedded with infantry units to help translate for US & Coalition forces. Day in and day out they were in combat and despised by their fellow Afghans. They were targeted, many lost their lives, their families were kidnapped and beheaded and placed in public squares to send a message and yet they still pressed on helping us in the hope of a better life. Many are still waiting today to come here. Mind you this is after years of waiting and waiting and risking their lives daily. So who deserves to come here for a better life? Is it the person who directly benefited the US and put their lives on the line for us, or the person who breaks the law b/c they want what America can provide. What is more fair, since we cannot take in the entire world? Is it more fair for people to just cross an open field, hide in a shipping container, hide under a boat, then melt into a city, fly under the radar, get benefits that our tax money goes to, then expect amnesty from Congress or is it more fair to reward those who directly contributed to our country before ever getting here? What about all the women and children that are raped at the hands of coyotes and human traffickers at multiple points along their journey because our immigration laws have historically been weak and they think they can just come here and get right in. Traffickers take advantage of that and abuse the people who often pay their entire life savings to enter our country illegally. Is that cool, why isn't the MSM speaking out against that? Perhaps these scumbags wouldn't be in business if they knew it would lead to nowhere if they couldn't get across the border. There's more to the issue than just "So and so wants a better life so it's a travesty that we don't give it to them". There are Billions of people all around the world who want to come here. The bottom line is we provide immigration to people, legally, that have skills we need. This is common for all developed countries in the world. It has to benefit us as a nation, not crooked politicians who want voters dependent on the government, which is why they push mass illegal immigration. Go check out Ellis Island and look at the immigration history and the requirements people had to go through to get here. It wasn't just a free for all like the lying MSM tries to make it out to be. Most logical Americans are fine with people coming into our country legally. We welcome them and uphold them when they strive to make a better life for themselves, as long as they Integrate, Embrace American Values, Embrace Freedom, Embrace Hard Work, Embrace our Language and Embrace our History. But when you break the law and cut ahead of others and then demand rights, then you get rejected by most Americans. I simply see this as the truth. I welcome all immigrants who enter legally and want to embrace America. I work with tons of legal immigrants that are now Americans and most of them love our country more than average Americans do. They have built a phenomenal life for themselves and those around them and understand what our country is about when you follow the law. Matter of fact I don't doubt for a minute that a large majority of the illegal immigrants simply want to make a better life for themselves. I also know many of their children and of course they have a different view. I sympathize with their parents as I sympathize with all of the other people I have met around the world who live in poverty and want to come here. But at the end of the day everyone has to understand we have laws that have to be followed which includes an order of merit for immigrants. We simply cannot intake millions of illegal immigrants and sustain an economy. -Guest Post -Editor’s Note: Instead or politicizing, which most will do, why not demand accountability from our representation? If the policy is failing, change the policy. Unfortunately, there is no political will to do so. Connecticut just became the tenth blue state to pledge to cast its electoral votes for whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationally.
Why? Because according to the measure's proponents, the electoral college -- along with everything else that's more than 10 minutes old -- is backward and stupid. Here's one more step toward making the United States into a giant, undifferentiated blob, as opposed to the collection of distinct societies it was originally intended to be. The Constitution refers to the United States in the plural every time, and the way the Constitution and the Union were originally understood, the "popular vote" was an irrelevancy. During the World Series, for example, we don’t add up the total number of runs scored by each team over the course of the series, and decide who won on that basis. We count up how many games each team won. Thus:Game 1: Red Sox 10, Mets 0 Game 2: Red Sox 15, Mets 1 Game 3: Red Sox 5, Mets 2 Game 4: Red Sox 1, Mets 2 Game 5: Red Sox 0, Mets 1 Game 6: Red Sox 2, Mets 3 Game 7: Red Sox 3, Mets 4 In this imaginary series the Red Sox scored 36 runs while the Mets scored only 13, yet everyone would acknowledge that the Mets won the series. Not a single sports fan would be running around demanding that we count the total number of runs instead, or insisting that the way we determine the World Series winner is sinister. But I think this is the correct analogy with the electoral college. How many games — e.g., how many political societies, albeit weighted to some degree by population — did you win? Also, the electoral college puts an upper bound on how much support you can earn from any one state. Even if your whole campaign is geared toward taxing the rest of the country and handing the money to California, you still can’t get more than 55 electoral votes from that state. So to some extent, the electoral college forces the candidate to run a national race more than would be necessary otherwise. A group called National Popular Vote, which seeks to abolish the electoral college, claims that "presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion." But this problem becomes much worse without the electoral college. If there is no limit to the support I can get from California and New York, then I'll campaign in those states like a madman. At least the electoral college puts something of a brake on this kind of strategy. A brief note about Trump's defeat in the popular vote: had the election been decided on the basis of the popular vote, Trump would have campaigned differently in the first place. Also, more people in, say, California would have bothered to vote for him. So we can’t know that he would have lost the popular vote had those been the rules. What we do know is that every step toward making the U.S. into a giant blob instead of a decentralized collection of societies is a step toward more centralized, bureaucratic management of society, and away from liberty. We're not taught to think this way in school, of course. You know where you do learn this stuff? http://www.LibertyClassroom.com Tom Woods South Korea's foreign minister has said she believes President Donald Trump is largely responsible for bringing North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.
Hopefully someone in the state department will give Trump cue cards to read from so he doesn’t mess this up. Here’s a few talking points to start from:
1992: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#1) 1994: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#2) 1999: North Korea signs historic agreement to end missile tests 2000: North Korea signs historic agreement to reunify Korea! Nobel Peace Prize is awarded 2005: North Korea declares support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula 2005: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program and "denuclearize"! (#3) 2006: North Korea declares support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula 2006: North Korea again support for "denuclearization" of Korean peninsula 2007: North Korea signs historic agreement to halt nuclear program! (#4) 2007: N&S Korea sign agreement on reunification 2010: North Korea commits to ending Korean War 2010: North Korea announces commitment to "denuclearize" 2010: North Korea again announces commitment to "denuclearize" 2011: North Korea announces plan to halt nuclear and missile tests 2012: North Korea announces halt to nuclear program 2015: North Korea offers to halt nuclear tests 2016: North Korea again announces support for "denuclearization" Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
Voter ID laws should not be controversial. A few points:
--You must have a government-issued ID in order to drive. --You must have a government-issued ID in order to fly. --You must have a government-issued ID in order to ride a train. --You must have a government-issued ID in order to enter this country and almost any other. --In many venues, you must even have a government-issued ID in order to buy alcohol, buy tobacco, and be admitted to bars and clubs. Voting is an even greater responsibility than any of those. Why, then, is it so controversial to require a government-issued ID in order for a person to vote in government elections? Voter fraud isn't a significant problem in this country, but it also isn't non-existent--and any fraud is too much fraud. Requiring voters to present a valid form of identification is one of the easiest, cheapest ways to eliminate one avenue of engaging in fraud.
Many argue that it discriminates against Hispanics and other demographics that are less likely to have government-issued ID's. In my mind, there are two responses to this.
First, all laws affect demographic groups differently. There is no such thing as a law that affects everyone in precisely the same manner. This isn't by itself a reason not to enact a law. If it were, then we could have no laws at all. (For example, even speed limit laws disproportionately impact demographics with higher rates of automobile ownership. Federal minimum wage laws disproportionately impact states with more low-wage earners. And so on.) Fundamentally, however, there's absolutely nothing standing in the way of anyone in any demographic of getting a government-issued ID. We commonly associate ID's with driver's licenses, but that's a misconception. It is definitely true that not everyone can get a driver's license, but not everyone needs one. States also issue plain ID's. That brings me to my second point: cost. If state ID's cost $15,000, then there may be validity to the discrimination argument. They don't though. In some states, ID's are completely free, and in most others, they cost no more than $10. If you're a citizen, then you can get one of these ID's at little or no cost. Thus, the only people who truly are locked out of voting by ID laws are people who are not U.S. citizens, and it's illegal for them to vote anyway. Many counter this by saying, "True, but low-income and less educated demographics frequently do not know how to get these free ID's." Come on, folks: Individual responsibility is an important value in this country. If you don't know how to do something that you need to know how to do, then you must take some initiative and figure that something out. Acquiring a state ID is simple, and figuring out how to do it doesn't even require an Internet connection.
Here's an idea though. Every election cycle, liberal and conservative activists engage in an implicit competition with each other by shoving as many voter registration forms into the hands their favored demographics. They've figured out how to quickly and simply explain to people how to register to vote and then how to actually vote--both of which are more complicated than getting a state ID. Why don't these groups simply hand out one additional form at the same time: a form explaining how to get an ID. This isn't rocket science. You don't even have to know how to sign your own name in order to get a state ID.
This brings us to the real reason many of these activist groups oppose voter ID laws: politics. Having to hand out an additional form and then have people engage in one additional step before voting would have an impact on the number of people they could smash into the polls after telling them who they should vote for. This, my friends, isn't a good reason for opposing a very basic, common-sense measure that would add just a bit more integrity to an electoral system already under assault by Russia and by dishonest allegations of "millions of fraudulent votes" by one of the very highest officials in our government. This Texas voter law actually is quite a relaxed voter law. It doesn't even require a government-issued ID at all. You can also use bank statements or even utility statements as forms of ID. You simply have to sign an affidavit explaining why you couldn't obtain an actual ID. Because it no longer requires a certain form of ID, some are opposing it on the grounds that there are consequences for lying on one's affidavit. Seriously?
Of course there are consequences for lying--again, common sense. Why wouldn't there be? What would be the point of having people sign a document at all if there were no consequences of lying on the document? That would simply waste taxpayer money to print the affidavits in the first place.
Any system in which anyone can walk in off the street to take part in the most critical function of our system on the basis of nothing more than his own word is a system that can never be of complete integrity. Much as we may hate to admit it, some people's word is worth less than a little. Our system should be as watertight as possible, and that starts with a very basic, cheap (even free) requirement already in force for so much else in our society: showing a form of ID. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
As I write this fat check to Uncle Sam, I've always wondered... What if elections were held immediately after we paid our tax bill every year?
What if taxes weren't withheld from everyone's paychecks every year and they had to come up with thousands each April? What if my tax bill was itemized every year? Rapper Cardi B famously noted that when she gives millions to private charities, she gets emails showing the schools she's helping to build and the kids she's assisting, why doesn't Uncle Sam? What if your tax bills were itemized? Of the XXX you owe: $251 goes to Egypt for foreign aid $14 goes for treadmills for shrimp $149 goes to govermental printing costs that could be avoided by changing font $110 goes to Air Force One for unofficial vacations $.48 on an unused monkey house $29 fraudulent tax reimbursements to prisoners $410 on 'improper payments' or fraudulent payments due to lack of financial controls $1.89 on a 3-week long FAA party $42 NSA and other gov't use of World of Warcraft as collections platform $4 U.S. Census commercial that appeared during the Super Bowl $.22 On a laundry-folding robot $17 On a study about baby names (and "The astounding conclusion: Popular names are popular with parents.") Do you think people would be more active in holding politicians/bureaucracy accountable?Who cares more about your money? You or the Government? Of course it's you. Looking at the list above, would you better invest that money in your life or are you glad it went to countries where they openly burn our flag? 50 Examples of Government Waste The six categories of wasteful and unnecessary spending are:
See also, 13 Silliest Uses of Taxpayer Money
Since you made it this far down the post, I'll let you in on a little secret. This 4th of July, we're going live with a new website www.Liberty.wiki. We're building out the infrastructure at the moment and learning wiki markup from scratch! Please bookmark it and, once up and running, contribute of your own free will, with an article or two on something that you're an expert at! Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot |
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
December 2020
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more! |