Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Constitutionality Of Health Care Law

Young Voices Associate Cathy Reisenwitz Published by The Chicago Tribune

Today the Chicago Tribune republished a column by Young Voices Associate Cathy Reisenwitz, Millennials Are Opting Out Of Obamacare Because It’s Not Insurance:

The problem with this plan is that it hoses young, relatively poor people like me right when we least need high bills for services they’re not using. And it helps older, relatively rich people who should be able to afford the care they need. If America’s downtrodden and struggling young people are smart, they’ll opt out. Then it’ll be up to the federal government to fine them enough to make up for the shortfall.

Read the rest here.
Read the original article on Forbes here.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Constitutionality Of Health Care Law

Young Voices Associate Cathy Reisenwitz Published by Forbes

Today Forbes published a column by Young Voices Associate Cathy Reisenwitz, Millennials Are Opting Out Of Obamacare Because It’s Not Insurance:

The problem with this plan is that it hoses young, relatively poor people like me right when we least need high bills for services they’re not using. And it helps older, relatively rich people who should be able to afford the care they need. If America’s downtrodden and struggling young people are smart, they’ll opt out. Then it’ll be up to the federal government to fine them enough to make up for the shortfall.

Read the rest here.

drones

Young Voices Advocate Clark Ruper Published by Antiwar.com

Yestereday Antiwar.com published a column by Young Voices Associate Clark Ruper, Drones and the Human Cost of War:

The prompt for a recent Atlantic Community call for articles on utilizing drones for military purposes asks “When do we have to start considering human rights violations and what the consequences of that might be?” As an American whose government has been a pioneer in deploying drones offensively in war zones, that question is of primary importance and ought to be addressed before the practicality of drones comes into question. And while we should consider what current global norms could prevent abuse of these technologies, we should be equally concerned with the inverse, namely, the impact these technologies could have on our norms and attitudes toward warfare in the future.

Read the rest here.

fracking

Big Business, Government Choose Profit Over Property Rights

At the end of September, North Carolina’s Mining and Energy Study Group approved a recommendation for compulsory pooling. The law forces landowners to accept compensation for fracking under their property, regardless of consent, if 90 percent of the surrounding land is voluntarily leased to the company. The recommendation is expected to be enacted by State legislature this fall.

The North Carolina General Assembly first passed compulsory pooling in the 1940s, but it is rarely applied, and never state-wide. Politicians are implementing it because, without it, fracking may not have a future in North Carolina. North Carolina is not the first state to take legal measures to trample on personal property rights to ensure that the energy companies can proceed with fracking, either. Compared to Arkansas’ 1 percent required minimum and Virginia’s 25 percent minimum, 90 percent seems generous.

Community activists in Raleigh are appalled. State representatives are trying to quell concerns by attempting to ensure that, when companies extract resources from the land, they don’t extract resources form neighboring properties without compensating the owners. But the contracts assigned to the percentage of owners who are forced to comply are not necessarily a fair trade. The minimum signed price agreed on by neighbors determines compensation, while the owner lacks a voice.

Hypocrisy is apparent in the response to the approval by Mining and Energy Commission Chairman James Womack. He finds it “personally abhorrent that a simple majority of land owners could dictate what I can do with my land,” but voted for compulsory pooling. He cited the concern over a landowner’s refusal to sign a lease preventing others from signing leases because of the potential for the resources to also be extracted from land not under contract. The “problem we have with the passion to protect private property is that you’re giving power to certain individuals to shut down the industry,” Womack said.

Womack, however, isn’t framing property rights in the situation properly. It might be disappointing and financially detrimental to other landowners and energy companies if they cannot extract resources, but it is not a violation of their rights. The real “culprit” is technological: The limitations of their extraction capabilities.

If someone cannot perform an activity on their land without harming neighboring properties, they should not be allowed to proceed. Lobbyists, businesses, and legislators seem to lack understanding of this basic notion, or choose to blur the lines when faced with massive profit potential. I cannot start a fire on my property, knowing it might spread to all of the neighboring properties and destroy their foliage. If I do, law should dictate that I face legal repercussions and my neighbors gain reimbursement. No one would logically allow me to approach the state legislature and demand that because I find it profitable to burn the forests on my land, my neighbors should also be forced to allow theirs to be burned.
Yet this is precisely what many state legislatures and businesses are doing. Energy companies do not want to face an onslaught of legal charges against them, but businesses should have to internalize the costs of their behavior rather than excusing it through legislative means. This kind of behavior is immoral and aggressive toward the minority of landowners who do not wish to participate in a business they do not find profitable or environmentally safe.

The situation highlights the danger of allowing legislators to control the marketplace. They choose to aid companies instead of respecting the concerns of their citizens in order to maximize the profit potential of resource extraction. In the short term, this action could be seen as wise or beneficial for the community as a whole. For those who see the environment as their number one concern, however, no monetary reward outweighs the long-term damages incurred.

We should always have a right to maintain our property, regardless of how disappointing the results of enforcing it may be to those who wish to profit from it. Businesses do not have a right to behave in a way that forces unwilling members to participate as much as I have a right to burn down my neighbor’s forest because I think it’s better for everyone involved. The law system should reflect a respect for the individual’s ability to determine what is best for them and their property and not an abandon that value at the expense of citizens in order to allow companies to maximize profits.

If you’d like to speak with or book Megan or any of our other Advocates, please contact Young Voices now.

20131007_SilkRoadFrontPagedetail

Associate Cathy Reisenwitz Published by The Freeman

Yestereday The Freeman published a column by Young Voices Associate Cathy Reisenwitz, How the Silk Road Shutdown Makes Everyone Less Safe:

It took someone named Dread Pirate Roberts to create a way for people to buy and sell illegal drugs without the threat of getting hurt and with little threat of getting ripped off. His deep website, Silk Road, was the eBay of the underworld until it was seized by the FBI last week. When the government shut down Silk Road, it kicked all its users back onto the streets, locking users out of the safest way anyone has ever devised for acquiring an illicit substance—whether a mind-altering substance or a not-yet-FDA-approved food or medication.

Read the rest here.