The Freedom Bulletin

The Massachusetts legislature is trying to take away even more of people’s freedom than they already have, specifically the freedom to drive a car.

The version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives bans drivers from using cell phones without hands-free devices and from texting, and required drivers over 75 years old to have vision tests every 5 years in order to keep their licenses.

The Senate bill is even worse. It makes texting a primary offense, bans junior operators from using cell phones at all, and requires people at age 75, 80, and every three years thereafter to be tested by doctors in order to keep their license, although they are allowed to take a road test if that fails.

Why are people unable to understand that driving should be treated as a right, not a privilege? Texting does not violate anyone’s rights. Neither does using a cell phone. Neither does driving, no matter what age you are. It is true that texting, talking on the phone, and age affect the probability of being in an accident. Hitting someone with your car violates their rights. But doing something that might increase your chances of violating someone’s rights is not the same as violating someone’s rights. The government only has the right to ban the latter.

This is going to sound radical, but it is what I believe: People of all ages have a right to drive. We have a right to text and talk while driving. Forcing people to take tests, pay money, or undergo medical exams in order to drive violates our rights.

I am especially disturbed at the part of the Senate bill that forces elderly people to be screened by their doctors. Sen. Brian Joyce, one of the leaders in the fight against driving freedom, said that this “makes it a lot less threatening to seniors.” I completely disagree. I would much rather have a driving test at the RMV than a medical exam. A test of your driving abilities, by people who treat you as a person, preserves one’s privacy and dignity much more than being examined by a doctor. Although I am strongly opposed to requiring road tests for older drivers, I am even more strongly opposed to requiring medical exams. This law, if it passes, would be an almost unprecedented violation of liberty, on the level of the Durham-Humphrey Amendment and required strip searches at airports and much worse than taxes, gun bans, or security cameras. The government does require medical exams for certain jobs and if I’m not mistaken to attend public school, but they have never, to my knowledge, required adults to have a medical exam to do something as basic as driving. Mandating medical exams is the exact opposite direction that the world should be moving in.

I do not understand why so many purportedly pro-liberty people choose this issue on which to take a position that is diametrically opposed to their overall ideology. Why don’t the Libertarian Party, Republican Party, and Tea Party movement make a fuss over these abuses of our right to drive? Why are so few people willing to bravely take a stand?

If you live in Massachusetts and you agree with me, won’t you contact your state Senator and Representative and ask them to vote against all bills that further restrict people’s right to drive?

There is good news and bad news out of the State Senate. Unfortunately but predictably, they passed the hypocritical bill which would give Governor Patrick the power to appoint a senator to replace Ted Kennedy, a power that they took away from Mitt Romney in 2004 because he is a Republican. Because Patrick has said he will sign the bill, it is set to become law.

However, the power-hungry Democrats did not get a two-thirds majority, which means that the bill has to wait 90 days before going into effect. That is, unless Patrick petitions Secretary of State William Galvin saying that it is an emergency, and Galvin grants the petition. I really hope he doesn’t do that.

A salute goes out to the 5 Republican state senators, as well as the 11 Democrats who were brave enough and had enough integrity to vote against this bill:

• Stephen Brewer
• Jennifer Flanagan
• John Hart
• Brian Joyce
• Michael Moore
• Richard Moore
• Michael Morrissey
• Steven Panagiotakos
• James Timilty
• Susan Tucker
• Stephen Baddour

Source: Boston Herald

The Massachusetts state legislature is considering a bill that would give the government the power to quarantine people in the unlikely scenario that the governor declares a public health emergency. Some of the powers the bill would give to local public health authorities include the following:

• “to decontaminate or cause to be deconatminated, or to destroy any material”
• “to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons”
• “an officer authorized to serve criminal process may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order for isolation or quarantine”
• “to decontaminate or cause to be deconatminated any individual”
• “to perform physical examinations, tests, and specimen collection necessary to diagnose a disease or condition and ascertain whether an individual presents a risk to public health. If an individual is unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis, the decontamination or diagnosis procedures may proceed only pursuant to the order of the superior court. During the time necessary to obtain such court order, such individual may be isolated or quarantined…”
• “An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined…”
• “When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health…the commissioner or the local public health authority may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information, including but not limited to the person’s residence and employment addresses, date of birth, and telephone numbers.”

I think this bill is yet another example of the government putting the greater good above individual rights. The amount of things people are allowed to do is gradually shrinking, and our liberties are slowly disappearing. The government should not, under any circumstances, be able to force people to undergo any medical procedures or examinations. The part about arresting people without a warrant doesn’t sound so great, either.

Because of Deval Patrick’s budget cuts, the Franklin Park Zoo may have to close, and some of the animals there may have to be killed.

I find it outrageous that the Massachusetts government is spending large amounts of money on things like free stuff for people who aren’t even citizens, STD prevention, and teen pregnancy prevention, but they are going to just let animals die. And the T has to raise its fares because the government decided that free things that only poor people or people with babies are allowed to have are more important than public transportation, which benefits everyone.

Things like zoos, public transportation, museums, and libraries should be made financially self-sustaining through fares, admissions, and membership fees if at all possible, but it is much more justifiable to spend tax money on these things than on wealth redistribution programs. This is because welfare programs are discriminatory in that they only help people whom the government has decided are eligible, usually those whose incomes are below certain levels. Zoos and public transportation benefit everyone who chooses to use them.

The state government should cut $14 billion, mostly in welfare programs, as I outlined here: The Massachusetts budget. It’s completely wrong that they are raising the sales tax, cutting from zoos, and forcing T fares to go up, while barely touching $14 billion worth of unnecessary, unjust welfare programs. If they made all the cuts they should, the state could lower taxes (not just avoid raising them) and still have enough money for zoos and $8 billion to give to the T in order to get rid of its debt and hopefully enable it to not need tax revenue in the future.

Governor Patrick and the state legislature really need to get their priorities straight.

Check out this great column by Joe Fitzgerald from the Herald criticizing the recent backlash against older drivers. I agree with him!

State legislators couldn’t come to agreement at a hearing yesterday on various proposals to take away old people’s right to drive. Here are a few of them:

• Sen Brian Joyce’s proposal to have drivers road tested every five years starting at age 85. This is blatantly discriminatory and unfairly punishes all old people for the bad driving of a few.
• Rep. Joseph Wagner’s idea to periodically road test all drivers. I oppose this, since everyone has a right to drive, and never-ending testing places an undue burden on this right, but it’s better than only testing old people since at least it’s not discriminatory.
• Rep. Kay Khan’s proposal to allow doctors to report patients who might be bad drivers to the RMV. I oppose this since it’s none of doctors’ business whether their customers are good drivers or not. Doctors are paid to provide a service to people, not to snitch on people and boss them around.
• Sen. Patricia Jehlen’s idea to require people to bring a list of their diagnosed functional impairments to the RMV. I oppose this, since it’s none of the RMV’s business what ailments you have.
• Sen. Steven Baddour’s idea that people have the responsibility to make their parents stop driving. This places an undue burden on sons and daughters and is very demeaning to old people.

As you can see, I don’t really like any of the legislators’ ideas. There is nothing wrong with driving laws today except that they are too restrictive. The government, on both the state and federal levels, has been gradually shrinking the amount of things we are allowed to do, from gun control to mandatory health insurance to mandatory chemotherapy to the greyhound racing ban to airport security. Restricting older people’s driving is just another attempt to take away liberty in the name of safety, and that is the last thing Massachusetts needs.

I know that most people seem to think of driving as a privilege, but I think it should be treated as a right. It doesn’t violate the rights of anyone else, and it isn’t immoral, so why should it be a privilege? Neither the government nor doctors nor family members have the right to decide whether people should be allowed to drive or not. Call me crazy, but I don’t think it would be a bad idea to abolish all license requirements and let people of all ages decide for themselves if they are skilled enough to drive.

Finally, I have created my own budget for the state of Massachusetts. What I did was went through the fiscal year 2009 budget and listed everything that could be cut without making the government unable to function. I was able to cut over $14 billion, much more than the $4 billion deficit that the state legislature faced before they raised the sales tax. Because the budget is so long, I didn’t get to read everything through as carefully as I would have liked to and there were some items that I didn’t really know what they were, so there’s probably more that I could cut if I looked closer.

Anyways, why not check out my state budget?

Terrible but unsurprising news: the Massachusetts state senate voted to raise the sales tax by 25%, as well as repealing the sales tax exemption on alcohol. Big surprise, the big-government-supporting, socialist thieves won, and freedom and justice lost.

All the senators who voted in favor of the tax increase, as well as everyone who protested in favor of it at the state house, should be ashamed! Thanks for taking away my money and my liberty.

According to the Boston Globe article:

“Maybe we should call this the New Hampshire economic stimulus bill,” Senator Robert L. Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican, said with sarcasm.

Right on, Senator Hedlund!

Edit: Go to Hub Politics to see how all the senators voted. If your senator voted yea, then vote them out!