As <a
href=”http://bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=561″>we’ve
discussed
at great length, I agree with a lot of today’s <a
href=”http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/01/04/driven_to_distraction”>editorial
in the Globe:
It is not a matter of personal freedom when distracted
drivers endanger
others’ lives and limbs, or even when they bang a few thousand fenders,
driving up everyone’s insurance premiums.
Exactly. We have rules on the road: we are not “free” to drive on the
left side; we are not “free” to run red lights; we are not “free” to
drive drunk. And indeed, DWP (Driving While Phoning) is shown to be <a
href=”http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/”>inherently
and especially distracting. And no, hands-free headsets don’t seem
to make any difference.)
This is yet another reason why I’m not an all-around “libertarian”.
There are some freedoms that are just too precious to ever compromise,
especially freedoms of conscience: speech, religion, association, etc.
However, I think we muddy the waters by demanding protection for
certain optional, social, and consequential behaviors, e.g. the
“freedom” of speech on the phone, while driving,
thereby putting other people at risk. “Freedom to unnecessarily
endanger other people” doesn’t seem worth protecting to me.
Flame away, guys… and click “Discuss” to take the poll.
I still think I’m right on this. And I’ll repeat my basic take on these kinds of issues. Holmes had it right: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” So I don’t disagree with Charley on the major premise that “freedom to unnecessarily endanger” is not protectable. Where we disagree is on the minor premise of what constitutes “unnecessary” endangerment (i.e., where the other man’s nose begins). I’m all for banning the use of hand-held phones while driving – it’s fair to say that the availability of two hands is generally required for safe operation. But extending the ban to hands-free operation is (1) unenforceable, since it’s almost impossible to detect and people will simply ignore the rule, and (2) not different from other, equally distracting common practices in cars that are not, and never will be, regulated – like eating a messy sandwich, drinking hot coffee, dealing with screaming children, having an interesting conversation with a passenger, singing along with a raucous CD, the list is endless. Government is free to prevent me from doing stuff that injures “the other man’s nose.” ‘Til then, it should keep its nose out of my business.
I agree with your basic premise, and you’re right, it’s one reason not to be an absolute Libertarian. Freedom doesn’t mean you can do whatever the heck you want, freedom means creating an environment where people actually have options, and practical freedom to pursue them.
<
p>
On the other hand, that doesn’t automatically mean cell phone use while driving should be banned. It means we can weigh whether or not to allow certain things, and in some cases, it’s not immoral or anti-freedom to ban behaviors. It says little about whether this particular behavior is one of those.
<
p>
I didn’t answer the poll because I’m not sure whether my answer is a yes, a no, or somewhere in between. I think handsfree cell phone use should not be banned. I think it is okay to ban handheld cell phone use, and perhaps I lean slightly towards banning it, but I don’t know that I go as far as advocating that it should be banned. I do go as far as not doing it myself.
<
p>
Handsfree cell phone use is also distracting, but no more so than having a conversation with a friend, or listening to the radio, or being mentally distraught, or a number of other things. I remember reading about a German study that found that music above a certain volume causes people to speed, and an Israeli study that found a similar result for music above a certain RPM (however soft it is). Should the law regular radio volumes, or the RPM of CDs allowed for driving? We can’t practically ban anything that can be “distracting”. Just keep your hands and feet on the controls.
I am against banning cell phones be they hands free or not. I am against the ban because of the premise of the argument. However the premise that is being raised really isn’t freedom it is distraction. If a government entity seeks to ban distractions, which is the argument for banning phones, then such an entity has an obligation to ban all distractions. A long, in-depth conversation with someone in the car can, at least for me, be as distracting as a cell phone conversation. Also, as for the freeing of the hands, if that is the argument, then a government must ban eating, smoking, drinking, make up, etc. I hate cell phones and the incredible annoyance they have created in and out of cars yet my annoyance does not serve as a great enough justification to ban them.
<
p>
The freedom argument does not hold much water for me. We allow people to drive to bars and as far as I am concerned it is a lot more dangerous for a person to drink even one beer and drive than driving while talking on the phone. However, we allow the drinker’s freedom to trump the sober victim’s freedom. I agree with Cos that freedom does not mean doing whatever the heck you want but I have to say that I think freedom means something close to that. The greater challenge is not protecting the freedom but teaching society how to respectfully use its freedom. We need to create laws to “protect” freedom because we as a society has not fully learned to respect freedom.
[ this is entirely off the topic of cell phones and driving ]
<
p>
We need to create laws to “protect” freedom because we as a society has not fully learned to respect freedom.
<
p>
I don’t there there exists any possible state of society where “learning to respect freedom” can act as a substitute for laws. Consider, for example, regulations on food safety – they restrict the freedom of any random person to set up a cart selling food on a city street, without first getting the proper permit. They protect our freedom to go to strange cities and buy appealing food from strangers without checking references. Or, consider the system of justice set up to enforce contract law. It protects our freedom to enter into business and personal contracts with confidence, knowing there’s a system to back them up – a consistency of enforcement that allows all of us to do more. Freedom is never, and never can be, an absence of laws and restrictions. There cannot exist a society like that. Laws don’t just “protect” freedom from those who would endanger it. The proper set of laws create freedom that wouldn’t have existed without them.
Reread my post. I think if you do that you will find that nowhere did I explicitly or implicity say that there is a substitute for laws. My position is that we over-legislate because we cannot respect each others freedoms. The best government is the least intrusive. I agree with you that in areas like food regulation the government should regulate however I disagree that this is giving up freedom. I am not interested in getting food poisoning so I feel as though I abdicate nothing to the federal government if it decides to do a job I would do myself, namely inspect meat and food products.
<
p>
I think banning cell phones is an example of an over intrusive government. A group of people citing both annoyance and safety believe that cell phones should be banned. I hardly think that annoyance is an appropriate reason to prevent people from doing things so I won’t spend too much time on that argument. Charley’s central point seemed to be the increased danger he personally suffers at the hands of chatty drivers. So I must ask, if we totally ban cell phones on the premise that the increased dangers to others constitutes justification to abdicate the freedoms of others aren’t we obligated by principle and intellectual honesty to every year, when the new deadliest driving interference is reported, to ban that interference? If once cell phones are banned we find that eating in the car is as dangerous as cell phones musn’t we ban eating? And then when we find it is talking to passengers, or having a baby in the back seat, don’t we have to ban those because others are put in danger? What about banning people from driving to a bar. We all agree that at least 7 out of 10 people drive to a bar not to be a designated driver but to consume at least one alcoholic beverage. Can’t we decrease incidents of drunken driving by banning any form of driving to an establishment serving liquor unless a person is a designated driver?
<
p>
All I am suggesting is that if we realized that in exercising our freedoms we are at times conflicting on the freedoms of others we might need to legislate less and in turn be more free.