How far should “big brother” go to protect us from ourselves? Stuart’s comment made me think about where I’d like to draw the line.
The line should be drawn at protecting the population from the stupidity of others. That is, if dumb people decide to hurt themselves they should be able to do so as long as they do not harm others in the process. It would be impossible for laws to cover all conceivable ways people can hurt/kill themselves. Dumb people are very creative in this regard. There are even awards for the the cream of the crop albeit most are not able to attend the awarding ceremony.
Some laws for examples:
-
1. Diving. In Israel any diver must have diving insurance. A Diving Law (I could only find it in Hebrew) covers all aspects of diving safety and procedures. That is, if you break them, you may be fined or jailed but the goal is to protect you from yourself. There are no such laws in the US; everything is in recommendation form. I side with the US approach. If you can only harm yourself, then no laws need to be in place to protect you.
-
2. Cell phones. I’ve covered my opinion in a previous post. They should be banned while driving, because it is probable that the yakker is going to hurt others; especially when the offender is driving a tank (these used to be known as SUVs, but now they are armoured personnel carriers with a cargo space for 6 anti-aircraft missiles and a mount for a 0.5 caliber machine gun.)
-
3. Helmets. Once again, you will only harm yourself; the option to sport a helmet to protect your vital (for some more than others) organs should be left for the individual. As it is, many people wear these yamaka size “skid lids” which are pieces of plastic that don’t protect much but apparently are within the law.
With that said, I begin to realize that this topic is tough and all cases are in the grey zone riddled with further corner cases. No example is ever that simple. The fact is that these kind of “big brother” laws save lives and it is hard to argue against that. Perhaps more resources should be invested in education and prevention to get people to be smarter when it comes to their own, and others’ safety; the result will be that such laws no longer be needed.
I’ll need to think about this topic some more…
Do you have any related scenarios to ponder about? Further thoughts?
A couple of other hot scenarios are:
Seatbelts – In Michigan there is a big campaign now to get people to buckle up with police setting up ‘traps’ to catch offenders and fine people $65. I am a big proponent of wearing seatbelts and am conflicted on where the law should go. I am less concerned about adults being forced to wear seatbelts but when I think of parents that don’t insist that their kids buckle up – that is a different story since they can be ‘innocent victims’.
Car seats as well as when kids can sit in a front seat – Similar to above.
Smoking – As a former smoker I have little tolerance for having to breathe other people’s second hand smoke. I don’t care if people want to smoke just don’t force me or your children to endure it. In this regard California is truly a breath of fresh air… every restaurant is smoke free. When I first arrived in Michigan I remember visiting a bowling alley as part of a company outing and feeling like I had smoked a pack of cigarettes. My clothes certainly smelled like an ashtray for days.
Oh… and another one from recent news:
TV makers are now forced to adopt certain HDTV standards. How is it that the government is forcing businesses to manufacture certain types of products? Thats sounds more like the centralized planning of the old Soviet Union. (Of course you can argue about the use of licensed radio bands – but just revoke the use of those licenses by certain dates and let consumers decide what types of products they want to buy.)
Stuart,
Thanks for your comments. Each point you raise is worth a long discussion.
I think the “Click It or Ticket” is a nationwide campaign; it is running here in California in full force these days.
I was wondering about the same thing regarding HDTV… it makes no sense. I have a freind who is knowledgable in these matters, I’ll ask him to comment.
I too am a strong proponent of individual rights to do stupid things.
What is always scary is when society is brought in as an issue. In the helmet law cases the argument is always made that an individual’s behavior jeapordizes society by increasing healthcare costs. Double that argument for smoking. These arguments are a great way to impose the will of the majority on the minority.
-Stiennon
By the same logic, everyone should be forced to exercise and eat only healthy foods. And also no sharp corners on desk or chairs. How about this from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm The assumption is that people don’t really have any rights, so as long as the government can come up with a plausible argument, they can ban what they’d like.
As far as HDTV, it just and absolute disaster. Really this has to have been pushed by the content providers. They are the only ones who gain, while the government comes out even, and manufacturers and consumers are hit hard. It is definitely central planning, and it is of the sneaky sort, justified by talk of advancement. Advancing what?!?!? The ability to watch more TV than ever? Can this really be in anyone’s interest but the advertisers?
Saar,
I do not agree with: “Helmets. Once again, you will only harm yourself”
Think of this scenario. If you hit a biker who is not wearing a helmet with your car and his/her head hits the street curb, you will be responsible for his/her death. Although, his/her stupidity of not wearing the helmet might be the real reason of death.
Sina
The kippah link was great. Is there one with a monkey on it ?
Sina,
In the draft, I actually had a paragraph describing exactly what you mention. I decided to remove it because it muddied the waters… it’s not a simple topic, this one.
Catching up… the cell-phone thing starts to cross into a gray area. There’s evidence that anything distracting (fiddling with the radio, sipping coffee, daydreaming, conversing with passengers) has a similar effect on driving. The **real** issue is not paying attention, and **that’s** what should be handled. This is far more effective and avoids the situation of restricting random behaviors because some bureaucrat convinced members of the media who whip the public into a frenzy without really considering the situation as a whole.
Phew, that felt good.