If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It seems that every day I pick up the paper (or browse the internet), I stumble upon at least one new liberty-assaulting scheme that bureaucrats are eager to shove down our throats. Today was no different, as I discovered from a Daily Texan article that the city of Austin wants to ban “road texting” by the end of 2009. The article features some pretty entertaining quotes from students in favor of the ban. For example:
“I’ve noticed that I’m much more distracted if I text and drive,” said Dana Hicks, a graduate student in counselor education. “It’s dangerous. I think the law is a great idea because then I won’t feel guilty for not texting people back.”
Wow, who would of thought that texting while driving was a dangerous activity? Apparently we need yet another law to help protect us from our own stupidity. Of course this law won’t be protecting potential offenders’ pocket books. If the ban is instituted, the road texter will receive a class c misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500. Who knows how our favorite police chief, Art Acevedo, will allocate these additional funds. More surveillance, perchance?
I’m not much of a texting fan, but I’ll admit that I’ve sent many a messages while driving. Still, I feel I’m driving no more dangerously than when I’m talking to another passenger, adjusting the radio, or reading a book. Unfortunately, it seems like its only a matter of time before legislators try to ban these and other activities as well. The senate is already considering a nation-wide texting ban, which if instituted, would mandate states to enforce the ban, lest they receive a 25% reduction in highway funds. How tragic the state of affairs: our government threatens to take away unconstitutional funding via an unconstitutional law.
So how do we take back our road liberties, one might ask? Simply privative the roads. I know, idealistic in thought, but maybe someday. However, with the rate at which our country is headed toward bankruptcy, that day may come sooner than we think. If and when the government starts selling off its roads, you can guarantee I’ll be right there to make an investment.
To read the Daily Texan article, click here.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Isn’t it obvious that there is no need for such a law? Darwinism handles the problem for us in a perfectly natural way! If you text and drive, you risk death. Thus stupid people will be helpfully weeded out.
I totally agree! Unfortunately the government is obstructing the evolutionary process, thereby polluting the gene pool.
I agree as well, even though I hope those people who text and drive do not hit and kill people, it is bound to happen.
This is not a libertarian idea – this is an anarchist idea. That individuals ought to have sovereignty within their personal sphere is not in question for the libertarian, but as a society, support for the idea of individual liberty requires the evaluation of the degree to which exercising individual discretion impacts the liberties of others – which we should cherish.
I ought to be free to wildly swing my arms about, but doing so when walking near another individual raises the question, “Is exercising my right to swing my arms wildly without coercion superior to the right of another individual not to be hit by those arms?” The answer, of course, is no.
We have to be wise enough to surmise that this extends to probabilities as well. Consuming alcohol and driving does not necessarily impede the rights of others, but the combination of the (1) degree to which the right of another that it impedes (the liberty to go unmaimed and uninjured by others…without consent) is superior to the right(s) being exercised (to drink yourself silly and to drive) and (2) the probability that that the right being exercised will jeopardize the far superior right, conspire to create a circumstance in which a libertarian ought to favor or at least consider the need for a law to protect the ability of individuals to freely exercise their individual liberty.
Libertarianism can’t just be a knee-jerk aversion to laws – the non-arbitrary rule of law protects each of our abilities to operate independently in our own sphere. If texting while driving causes impairment of motor skills and vision to the extent that it poses a materially heightened probability of causing physical or material harm to another individual, the inferiority of your right to text to others’ rights not to have their car smashed by a 20-something in Daddy’s Prius on an iPhone makes this law potentially compatible with a libertarian view.
If your argument is simply that texting doesn’t cause that danger, then make that argument, because it’s a legitimate one, but it has zero, nada and zilch to do with the idea of liberty.