Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican representative, 2012 presidential candidate, and strong believer in private charity. That last piece of information may sound out of place, but it aligns with his libertarian-leaning political positions. While most Democrats and Republicans have no intention of cutting government charity, Paul strays from his party and believes that individuals can provide the best aid for those living under unfortunate circumstances. However, a recent article from the Huffington Post, “Ron Paul’s Charity: Libertarian Views Fail Reality Test” by Christina Wilkie (the article is linked at the bottom of the post), states the impossibility of solely relying on private charity to provide for those in need. The real impossibility lies in the ability to know absolutely which form of charity is superior: government, private, or the perfect blend of both.
It is important to understand the libertarian’s belief in charity and how it differs from those who hold other political positions before moving on to the article. Libertarians believe that charity through taxation is not actually charity. A charity is a relationship between a voluntary donor and a voluntary receiver (the receiver technically has to accept the offer being given). Taxation replaces the voluntary role with coercion, that is, the donor becomes forced to give up something that belongs to him/her or face the threat of being sent to prison, fined, or suffering some other punishment. Those outside the libertarian influence find that force is justifiable as the end result is a noble one. The government assumes the role of Robin Hood and takes from the rich and gives to the poor. Please note that those who do believe in government charity also believe, for the most part, that private charity can coexist in society.
Getting back to Wilkie’s article, I would first like to discuss Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky’s statements. First, Lenkowsky should have given the name of the study he was referencing. Personally I would like to see how much Americans gave throughout the years, to which people/organizations they gave, and how charity measures up against tax rates and unemployment. I believe that at least part of this increase is due to technological advances, mainly the internet, having some impact of this statistic. Second, assuming the data is correct, Americans donate more money to charities today despite having higher income tax rates than in 1930 (the increase in tax rate is true according to The Tax Foundation) .1 One way to interpret the data then is to expect a further increase in taxes would lead to an increase in tax revenue and an increase in donation to private charity. It is hard to make an actual conclusion though because this study was not experimentally based, but only represents a correlation. One can look at this information with a more positive view of humanity and determine that people are becoming more generous. In that case maybe people today would give even more to charities if there were fewer and/or lower taxes. This stance also, however, cannot be proved or disproved by the study.
The article goes on to describe Paul’s recent experience with private charity. Kent Snyder, a fundraiser for Paul, had passed away in July from pneumonia. A pre-existing health condition excluded him from receiving health insurance. His lack of insurance resulted in substantial medical bills. Even with Paul and Snyder’s other friends and family donating money they were unable to pay all the expenses.
Cases similar to the one above make government programs such as universal healthcare seem appealing. Libertarianly speaking, there are alternate solutions to this problem. In fact, doing the opposite, that is, removing all government run healthcare programs would save the tax payer money. In return, he would have more money to spend on his own health choices. Government healthcare programs and regulations also have the risk of increasing the cost of private healthcare. Government does not have the same incentives as a private business does. They can charge above market prices because of the monopoly they have over the business. Citizens are forced to buy the government service whether they want/need to or not. Regulations, such as forcing insurance agencies to accept someone despite their current health, can increase the price of healthcare. Other regulations such as not allowing certain drug to be used or restricting the use of atypical medical practices (i.e. non science based treatments) can increase prices on the practice as well as limit the consumer’s medical path choice. Removal of government would allow for more competition among insurance agencies offering the best product at the best price.
Now that I have gone completely off topic, let us return to charity. If all the above happens to fail and the individual cannot find a health insurance plan either because it would be too expensive or no company would cover him, he can opt for charity. Paul says in Wilkie’s article that churches would be able to provide help. Paul’s theory is debunked by General Secretary James Winkler of the United Methodist Church who declares it impossible. However, this is assuming current conditions continue. Under a more libertarian government it may be possible. But it doesn’t have to be churches alone that handle those who need medical help. Clinics and hospitals set up by private charities can be created to support those in need.
You may be asking where we can find the money to invest in these charities. After all, we have already learned that a combined partnership of private charity and revenue raised by government in the form of taxes is still not enough today. Even if the libertarian theory is correct about people donating more with less taxation, would it be enough to offset and exceed the money made through taxation? Wouldn’t it be better to simply raise taxes to pay for this?
To the person who believes we should raise taxes, I would like to know: On whom should the government raise taxes? If your answer is the rich, what defines rich? How much should we raise taxes? Aside from health care, what other programs should the government invest in?
But where else can we get money if we’re not taxed more? My solution: Warren Buffett. Buffett has stated that he wanted to be taxed more. If he wants to give more of his money away, why doesn’t he just do it? Unless there is some crazy law that I do not know about that makes it illegal to give too much there is nothing stopping him. And he is not the only person who believes in giving more. Celebrities such as Seth MacFarlane and Jerry Springer have also stated they wanted to have their taxes increased. Again, why wait until you are forced to give your money? If you want to donate your money, my advice is to donate it. This would add lots to the charity fund and provide many families and individuals with a better chance at increasing their living standard.
“Ron Paul’s Charity: Libertarian Views Fail Reality Test”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-charity-republican-2012_n_983721.html
Sources
1. http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf
Oct 6, 2011
Sep 8, 2011
Democrats, Republicans, and the Other Guys
With the United States exceeding record levels of national debt, civil liberties diminishing, and a growing military power around the world, government’s power appears to be increasing at exponential levels. But as these policies continue, citizen’s trust and faith in government’s ability to fix the current situation also seem to be on the fall. America’s two great parties (I should probably specify that I am referring to the Democrats and Republicans as many would yield from using the adjective “great”) have again and again made promises to fix at least one of the major problems stated above, but failed to deliver. From these observations it can be concluded that a change is needed from the same two parties. However, not everyone would agree to that conclusion. These people are those that either remain loyal to their party (yes, these people still exist) or believe the only way a new ideology can come to power is through change from within the party.
In this article we will take a look at some of the political ideologies and views that people have towards a change (or stagnation) in the political system. Then I will offer a critique of their platform. First, however, let’s quickly glance at the policies of our two current leading political parties. But even before that, please note that when I discuss a particular group I am not referring to everyone that holds that label, but to a majority of those who do. Finding a 1.00 correlation is difficult at best (please view your Statistics 101 textbook to review the concept of correlations).
Democrats: This is how we “say” we will restore the nation.
Democrats believe that the current debt issue is not as much about spending as it is a revenue issue. Their belief is that if government is allowed to increase taxes, especially on the rich, the US can afford to pay for our current system and even fund new government run programs. When it comes to civil liberties, they believe in laws that allow people the ability to make their own choices on issues such as who they will marry and whether they will smoke marijuana or not. As for foreign policy, Democrats believe we should maintain peace and avoid wars.
What Democrats really mean.
When it comes to wanting to raise taxes, or change current taxes to fit a progressive tax model, Democrats tell the truth. Democrats were able to push through the removal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” but no other major strides have been made in restoring civil liberties. Our country continues to keep large number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and a new unconstitutional war has been declared in Libya, thus debunking the anti-war rhetoric.
Republicans: This how we “say” we will restore the nation.
Republicans think debt problems are caused by too much spending. Cutting programs to reduce spending is their plan to solve the debt issue. They believe social issues should be dictated by the government as to keep us safe from ourselves. They also believe that the current wars the Unite States are fighting are necessary for the security of the nation.
What Republicans really mean.
Republicans speak a lot about spending cuts, but this about all we get from them: talk. The cuts are usually unspecified and include a 20 year plan before any (if any at all) progress is made towards reducing spending. In the categories of civil liberties they have been successful at continuing the War on Drugs and introducing the PATRIOT Act to protect us (I feel so much safer). And we cannot forget about those defensive wars that they launched during the past decade against two nations that threatened our existence.
For two parties that are supposed to be total opposites of one another there is not much difference between them at all. Libertarianly speaking, it seems that the only policies that get pushed through are the worst ideals of the Democrat’s and Republican’s platforms. I will further compare and contrast, if there is anything to contrast, their platforms and actions in more detail in a separate post. Until then, if you believe that big government is what we need to preserve society, then a typical Democrat or Republican is the perfect candidate for you.
If you happen to disagree with the status quo Democrats and Republicans, but see all other candidates as “unelectable,” I ask you to reconsider that thought for a moment. Below I will list some solutions to working around America’s two-party system that specific individuals or groups are advertising. I will spend little time on ideology, except where necessary, in this section and focus more on changes to the election process.
The Tea Party Approach
The Tea Party movement began in 2009 in opposition to big government, specifically in the economic sphere. The Tea Party belief is that career politicians have lost touch with the majority of Americans. These politicians should be voted out and replaced by someone who usually fits the two conditions of 1) not giving into special interest groups and 2) believing in term limits. Both conditions are thought to keep politicians more honest and loyal to their campaign promises. They do not wish to start their own political party, nor is there a single Tea Party, but many small Tea Party groups that, for the most part, share similar ideas. However, since most run as Republicans, it seems to be a way changing the Republican Party from within.
Sticking with their belief that government is too big, many, if not all, Tea Party candidates have run on the belief that taxes are too high and spending needs to be cut. My problem with the Tea Party is that many contradict their belief in small government by taking a social conservative stance. They believe that people should be free to make their own economic decisions, but government is needed to regulate people’s personal lives. Also, many are pro-war, making them the equivalent of a slightly more fiscally conservative status quo Republican.
The Gary Johnson Approach
Gary Johnson is the former two-term Republican Governor from New Mexico. He believes that the Republican Party is the only party that can restore America. His beliefs currently align more with libertarian ideology than the run of the mill Republican. However, he believes historically that Republicans have been the ones to balance the check book and wants to bring back and expand that belief. Johnson also believes that by having the Republican Party focus more on finical rather than social issues more people would be willing to vote Republican.
The Ron Paul Approach
Known as the grandfather of the Tea Party movement, 12-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul has held favorable beliefs for third party candidates for many years. Why then is he running as a Republican? Paul tried running as a Libertarian back in 1988 election, but because of America’s two-party powerhouse he received little attention. He ran every election since as a Republican finding it is an easier way to obtain ballot access and receive media attention. Paul is more concerned with spreading the idea of liberty to people rather than linking it to a specific party.
Both Johnson’s and Paul’s choice to maintain Republican status could also cost them votes, however. Those that believe the Republican Party is too corrupt to be changed or to hold viable candidates would not end up voting for one of the two. The next two approaches work towards moving away from the two-party system.
The Libertarian Party (and probably other third parties) Approach
I bring up the Libertarian Party because it is the primary third party that I follow (I bet you would have never guessed that). Other third parties probably have similar beliefs. The Libertarian approach is that the two-party system is completely broken. That means there is no way of saving either of the parties through an internal fix. Third parties would need to make a name for them, thus they would run candidates that hold true to their positions. There would also be a growth in crisp platforms that break away from the traditional Democrat and Republican extremes. Libertarianly speaking, political parties would enter a free market atmosphere forcing the parties into competition to produce the candidate that most aligns with the party’s beliefs.
The Jesse Ventura Approach
Yes, that’s right. I am referring to the (former) Governor himself. Jesse Ventura served as the governor of Minnesota from 1999-2003. Initially he had strong faith in third parties. He even won his position as governor on the Reform Party ticket. More recently, however, Ventura has stated that for any third party to rise to power it must become as corrupt as the Republicans or Democrats. He now advocates the independent approach to running. His belief is that if one runs as an independent, voters will be forced to learn what the person is running for and not vote simply because the person belongs to a certain party.
As with the other approaches, both the Libertarian and Ventura approaches come with their setbacks. In practice, both approaches prove difficult to run a successful campaign. The candidates are usually given less, if any, air time to get their messages across to the public. This causes them to lose several votes that they could gain just by people knowing who they are. The best candidate to run in either situation is one that is well known, rich, or a combination of the two.
Ideally, I agree most with Ventura’s approach, which could also be known as Washington’s approach, as it is the most free market idea offered. When looking at reality, however, Paul’s approach seems the most practical. Although, I do see two conditions that could spark a revolution in favor of the rise of third parties and independents. The first is the growing mistrust in government that I mentioned at the beginning of the article. As more people become disgruntled by the two-party system, third parties and independents will become a more viable choice. The second condition is the growth of internet communication. If these non two-partiers start taking advantage of social networking sites they can communicate more directly with people and build a larger audience. If they chose to use these conditions to their advantage, independents and third parties could start building up a new base of supporters now and become a more prominent force in near future elections.
In this article we will take a look at some of the political ideologies and views that people have towards a change (or stagnation) in the political system. Then I will offer a critique of their platform. First, however, let’s quickly glance at the policies of our two current leading political parties. But even before that, please note that when I discuss a particular group I am not referring to everyone that holds that label, but to a majority of those who do. Finding a 1.00 correlation is difficult at best (please view your Statistics 101 textbook to review the concept of correlations).
Democrats: This is how we “say” we will restore the nation.
Democrats believe that the current debt issue is not as much about spending as it is a revenue issue. Their belief is that if government is allowed to increase taxes, especially on the rich, the US can afford to pay for our current system and even fund new government run programs. When it comes to civil liberties, they believe in laws that allow people the ability to make their own choices on issues such as who they will marry and whether they will smoke marijuana or not. As for foreign policy, Democrats believe we should maintain peace and avoid wars.
What Democrats really mean.
When it comes to wanting to raise taxes, or change current taxes to fit a progressive tax model, Democrats tell the truth. Democrats were able to push through the removal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” but no other major strides have been made in restoring civil liberties. Our country continues to keep large number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and a new unconstitutional war has been declared in Libya, thus debunking the anti-war rhetoric.
Republicans: This how we “say” we will restore the nation.
Republicans think debt problems are caused by too much spending. Cutting programs to reduce spending is their plan to solve the debt issue. They believe social issues should be dictated by the government as to keep us safe from ourselves. They also believe that the current wars the Unite States are fighting are necessary for the security of the nation.
What Republicans really mean.
Republicans speak a lot about spending cuts, but this about all we get from them: talk. The cuts are usually unspecified and include a 20 year plan before any (if any at all) progress is made towards reducing spending. In the categories of civil liberties they have been successful at continuing the War on Drugs and introducing the PATRIOT Act to protect us (I feel so much safer). And we cannot forget about those defensive wars that they launched during the past decade against two nations that threatened our existence.
For two parties that are supposed to be total opposites of one another there is not much difference between them at all. Libertarianly speaking, it seems that the only policies that get pushed through are the worst ideals of the Democrat’s and Republican’s platforms. I will further compare and contrast, if there is anything to contrast, their platforms and actions in more detail in a separate post. Until then, if you believe that big government is what we need to preserve society, then a typical Democrat or Republican is the perfect candidate for you.
If you happen to disagree with the status quo Democrats and Republicans, but see all other candidates as “unelectable,” I ask you to reconsider that thought for a moment. Below I will list some solutions to working around America’s two-party system that specific individuals or groups are advertising. I will spend little time on ideology, except where necessary, in this section and focus more on changes to the election process.
The Tea Party Approach
The Tea Party movement began in 2009 in opposition to big government, specifically in the economic sphere. The Tea Party belief is that career politicians have lost touch with the majority of Americans. These politicians should be voted out and replaced by someone who usually fits the two conditions of 1) not giving into special interest groups and 2) believing in term limits. Both conditions are thought to keep politicians more honest and loyal to their campaign promises. They do not wish to start their own political party, nor is there a single Tea Party, but many small Tea Party groups that, for the most part, share similar ideas. However, since most run as Republicans, it seems to be a way changing the Republican Party from within.
Sticking with their belief that government is too big, many, if not all, Tea Party candidates have run on the belief that taxes are too high and spending needs to be cut. My problem with the Tea Party is that many contradict their belief in small government by taking a social conservative stance. They believe that people should be free to make their own economic decisions, but government is needed to regulate people’s personal lives. Also, many are pro-war, making them the equivalent of a slightly more fiscally conservative status quo Republican.
The Gary Johnson Approach
Gary Johnson is the former two-term Republican Governor from New Mexico. He believes that the Republican Party is the only party that can restore America. His beliefs currently align more with libertarian ideology than the run of the mill Republican. However, he believes historically that Republicans have been the ones to balance the check book and wants to bring back and expand that belief. Johnson also believes that by having the Republican Party focus more on finical rather than social issues more people would be willing to vote Republican.
The Ron Paul Approach
Known as the grandfather of the Tea Party movement, 12-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul has held favorable beliefs for third party candidates for many years. Why then is he running as a Republican? Paul tried running as a Libertarian back in 1988 election, but because of America’s two-party powerhouse he received little attention. He ran every election since as a Republican finding it is an easier way to obtain ballot access and receive media attention. Paul is more concerned with spreading the idea of liberty to people rather than linking it to a specific party.
Both Johnson’s and Paul’s choice to maintain Republican status could also cost them votes, however. Those that believe the Republican Party is too corrupt to be changed or to hold viable candidates would not end up voting for one of the two. The next two approaches work towards moving away from the two-party system.
The Libertarian Party (and probably other third parties) Approach
I bring up the Libertarian Party because it is the primary third party that I follow (I bet you would have never guessed that). Other third parties probably have similar beliefs. The Libertarian approach is that the two-party system is completely broken. That means there is no way of saving either of the parties through an internal fix. Third parties would need to make a name for them, thus they would run candidates that hold true to their positions. There would also be a growth in crisp platforms that break away from the traditional Democrat and Republican extremes. Libertarianly speaking, political parties would enter a free market atmosphere forcing the parties into competition to produce the candidate that most aligns with the party’s beliefs.
The Jesse Ventura Approach
Yes, that’s right. I am referring to the (former) Governor himself. Jesse Ventura served as the governor of Minnesota from 1999-2003. Initially he had strong faith in third parties. He even won his position as governor on the Reform Party ticket. More recently, however, Ventura has stated that for any third party to rise to power it must become as corrupt as the Republicans or Democrats. He now advocates the independent approach to running. His belief is that if one runs as an independent, voters will be forced to learn what the person is running for and not vote simply because the person belongs to a certain party.
As with the other approaches, both the Libertarian and Ventura approaches come with their setbacks. In practice, both approaches prove difficult to run a successful campaign. The candidates are usually given less, if any, air time to get their messages across to the public. This causes them to lose several votes that they could gain just by people knowing who they are. The best candidate to run in either situation is one that is well known, rich, or a combination of the two.
Ideally, I agree most with Ventura’s approach, which could also be known as Washington’s approach, as it is the most free market idea offered. When looking at reality, however, Paul’s approach seems the most practical. Although, I do see two conditions that could spark a revolution in favor of the rise of third parties and independents. The first is the growing mistrust in government that I mentioned at the beginning of the article. As more people become disgruntled by the two-party system, third parties and independents will become a more viable choice. The second condition is the growth of internet communication. If these non two-partiers start taking advantage of social networking sites they can communicate more directly with people and build a larger audience. If they chose to use these conditions to their advantage, independents and third parties could start building up a new base of supporters now and become a more prominent force in near future elections.
Sep 3, 2010
"Excuse me sir, but what's a Libertarian?"
The afternoon was coming to an end. My friend and I relocated ourselves to the nearby Wal Mart. The petitioning was not going as well as I had planned. My friend enjoyed watching me make a fool of myself as I became use to the typical exchange of "Excuse me, but would you..." "No!". I figured we would stay for only a few more minutes when the oddest of events happened. While everyone tried their best to ignore me, one person finally walked up to me!
"Excuse me sir," she started, "but what's a Libertarian?"
Sir? Did I seem that much older to her? There was probably not much more than two or three years difference between us. I marked it off as being respectful. Her questioned is what really mattered at the moment.
"Simply, a Libertarian is a person of a political party that follows the libertarianism philosophy. Libertarians believe in small government, low taxes, and high personal liberties."
It was a generic answer, but it helped me explain who they were in the short time most people would give me to answer.
"That seems to be what every politician is calling for today," she justly replied. "Can you tell me their stance on specific issues?"
"Of course!" My excitement for her curiosity showed in the phrase. I toned it down as I continued. "Libertarians are against interventionism. That is, they not only believe in the withdrawal of troops from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the removal of soldiers from any other country that they might be vacating now."
"Does this mean they believe in isolationism?"
"Actually, quite the opposite. They believe in free trade with all nations. This includes lifting all trade restraints in such countries as Cuba. What they wish to avoid is permanent alliances that may pull us into more wars and hurt oversea trade routes."
"You've mentioned lowering taxes. A lot of politicians say that's what they plan to accomplish, but they never suggest how."
"During these hard economic times, it would seem wise to start paying back the national debt. Raising taxes seems like a logical, although painful approach. By cutting spending, however, we can also lower the debt. This can be done in two ways. The first is to eliminate government run programs which range from not being efficient to programs that are plain unconstitutional. The second way is to take current government organizations and privatize them. No longer will tax payers have to pay for numerous programs they might not even use. Therefore, reducing spending would lead to lower taxes while lowering the debt."
"After those programs are privatized, won't tax payers still pay for them outside of taxation?"
"Yes, but each tax payer has different needs. They will not have to pay for services that aren't needed by them. Also, Libertarians believe in the free market, a powerful market correction tool. Instead of having one government run business, in a free market several different companies will compete for that business. The result would be better product quality and cheaper prices. The free market would also eliminate any regulations the government has over non government run businesses, causing the people to become the regulators. The results will be the same: higher quality, lower price."
"Okay, I understand their economic and foreign policies now. What about the liberties of the people?"
"Libertarians will not tread on the constitution. Free speech means you have the freedom to express yourself. Gun laws would be looser. Those issues not mentioned in the constitution will be decided upon by either the states or individuals. For example, doctors who choose to perform abortions would have the right to, but, at the same time, doctors who do not believe in abortion have every right to not provide that service."
"Then marriage would be up to the people involved in the marriage while the government couldn't force someone to or not to perform a marriage they do not believe in."
"That's right!"
"Thank you sir. The Libertarians hold some refreshing views. I'll be willing to sign."
"Awesome!" Great! I was about to get another signature. Until, "Oh, but you need to be registered to vote to sign. Are you registered?"
"No, I'm sorry, but I won’t be able to vote until next month."
Darn! Another signature lost. Trying not to frown, I said in cheery tone what I said to even those who wouldn't sign, "That's all right. Have a good day!" She thanked me again and walked off. I figured I would follow her example and take off too. My few minutes had come to an end.
"Excuse me sir," she started, "but what's a Libertarian?"
Sir? Did I seem that much older to her? There was probably not much more than two or three years difference between us. I marked it off as being respectful. Her questioned is what really mattered at the moment.
"Simply, a Libertarian is a person of a political party that follows the libertarianism philosophy. Libertarians believe in small government, low taxes, and high personal liberties."
It was a generic answer, but it helped me explain who they were in the short time most people would give me to answer.
"That seems to be what every politician is calling for today," she justly replied. "Can you tell me their stance on specific issues?"
"Of course!" My excitement for her curiosity showed in the phrase. I toned it down as I continued. "Libertarians are against interventionism. That is, they not only believe in the withdrawal of troops from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the removal of soldiers from any other country that they might be vacating now."
"Does this mean they believe in isolationism?"
"Actually, quite the opposite. They believe in free trade with all nations. This includes lifting all trade restraints in such countries as Cuba. What they wish to avoid is permanent alliances that may pull us into more wars and hurt oversea trade routes."
"You've mentioned lowering taxes. A lot of politicians say that's what they plan to accomplish, but they never suggest how."
"During these hard economic times, it would seem wise to start paying back the national debt. Raising taxes seems like a logical, although painful approach. By cutting spending, however, we can also lower the debt. This can be done in two ways. The first is to eliminate government run programs which range from not being efficient to programs that are plain unconstitutional. The second way is to take current government organizations and privatize them. No longer will tax payers have to pay for numerous programs they might not even use. Therefore, reducing spending would lead to lower taxes while lowering the debt."
"After those programs are privatized, won't tax payers still pay for them outside of taxation?"
"Yes, but each tax payer has different needs. They will not have to pay for services that aren't needed by them. Also, Libertarians believe in the free market, a powerful market correction tool. Instead of having one government run business, in a free market several different companies will compete for that business. The result would be better product quality and cheaper prices. The free market would also eliminate any regulations the government has over non government run businesses, causing the people to become the regulators. The results will be the same: higher quality, lower price."
"Okay, I understand their economic and foreign policies now. What about the liberties of the people?"
"Libertarians will not tread on the constitution. Free speech means you have the freedom to express yourself. Gun laws would be looser. Those issues not mentioned in the constitution will be decided upon by either the states or individuals. For example, doctors who choose to perform abortions would have the right to, but, at the same time, doctors who do not believe in abortion have every right to not provide that service."
"Then marriage would be up to the people involved in the marriage while the government couldn't force someone to or not to perform a marriage they do not believe in."
"That's right!"
"Thank you sir. The Libertarians hold some refreshing views. I'll be willing to sign."
"Awesome!" Great! I was about to get another signature. Until, "Oh, but you need to be registered to vote to sign. Are you registered?"
"No, I'm sorry, but I won’t be able to vote until next month."
Darn! Another signature lost. Trying not to frown, I said in cheery tone what I said to even those who wouldn't sign, "That's all right. Have a good day!" She thanked me again and walked off. I figured I would follow her example and take off too. My few minutes had come to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)