Not Every Human Problem Deserves a Law: is this a new libertarian manifest?

Not Every Human Problem Deserves a Law: is this a new libertarian manifest?(reason.com)

16 points by viggio24 14 years ago | 10 comments

ddw 14 years ago |

I have a problem w/ the cell phone veto though because that involves other people. I've read studies that say that being distracted by your phone while driving can almost be as dangerous as being drunk. So what's the victim of such an accident supposed to do? Notice that someone is on their cell phone and stay away from them?

jhrobert 14 years ago | |

I've read studies that say that talking to a passenger is distracting, hence dangerous.

Well... I haven't read such studies actually, yet. But I feel like it's safer to stay at home, and shut up, and let the villains rule the world. Kidding.

I believe that trading liberty for safety is the true danger. That's because there is no point in expecting a sense of responsibility in the mind of people without freedom. Freedom and responsibility go together, remove the former, you remove the latter.

bryanlarsen 14 years ago | | |

Actually, studies have shown the opposite, talking to a passenger is less dangerous than driving alone. A passenger is part of your shared environment and reacts to road conditions. They also keeps you awake and alert.

"Your freedom to swing your fist ends when it comes into contact with my nose." I think this trite phrase applies here. You're not just risking yourself, the risk to others is very high and demonstrable.

waffle_ss 14 years ago | |

The problem with trying to regulate every type of driving impairment is that you can't be exhaustive (alcohol, cell phones, sleep deprivation, medication, talking to a passenger... where does it end?). The better way to handle it is to simply increase the civil/criminal penalty for reckless driving generically, as all of the examples fall into this category.

There's an interesting article on abolishing drunk driving laws written by a libertarian which touches on some of these points here, if you're interested: http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-...

Ron Paul 2012!

ddw 14 years ago | | |

Don't get me wrong, I think the snowboard helmet law whatever is ridiculous too. There was probably a highly publicized story about a kid snowboarding and that's no reason to pass a law. But every law should be considered on its impact. If I told you that thousands of crashes occur a year because people being distracted by their phone, does that still not warrant a law that may stop such behavior?

No offense but I'll take actual data analysis over some kind of Ayn Rand principals every time. The goal is to prevent crashes. I think it's dangerous to just wave things away with "not every human problem deserves a law." Again, Brown was probably right with the helmet, but not always. And in the case of cell phones he wrote "current fines and penalty assessments should be sufficient deterrent" so maybe he isn't using the same libertarian principle.

Egregore 14 years ago |

It's great that in some places there are such people in government. There are already a lot of laws and most people can't be expected to remember all those laws. It causes selective enforcement which leads to corruption.

rsanchez1 14 years ago |

This is the guy that California needed. They really were starting to make laws for everything. If you make laws for the smallest thing, you have to waste money enforcing those laws. It's no wonder why California's budget is deep in the red.