The Freedom Bulletin

In case you missed it, Jeff Jacoby wrote an excellent piece in the Globe last week arguing (among other things) that people shouldn’t need a license from the government in order to drive:

“Maybe the real question is why the state should license drivers in the first place. It’s one thing to require would-be motorists to enroll in driver’s-education classes and to be tested on their knowledge of safe driving practices. And of course anyone getting behind the wheel of a car is liable for damage caused through negligence or irresponsibility. But to condition driving itself on governmental permission? And to extort a chunk of money every few years to keep that permission current? By what right?

It’s no answer to say that driving can be dangerous or that roads are public property. Drinking bourbon, building campfires, and playing ice hockey can be dangerous too, but you don’t need Big Brother’s say-so before you can do them. And if drivers have to be licensed because they use public roadways, why shouldn’t bicyclists, joggers, and skateboarders be licensed as well?”

I’ve mentioned this idea a couple times, and I’m glad to see a mainstream writer/commentator think the same thing.

Essentially any activity can be dangerous; activities just differ in how dangerous they are. Driving is significantly more likely to cause injuries to others than walking down the street, but it is possible (although extremely unlikely) that you could, for example, accidentally walk into someone and startle them to much that they have a heart attack. This isn’t an argument to require licenses for walking, but in favor of giving everyone the right to act as they please, as long as they do not violate the rights of others. If you hurt someone or destroy their property while driving, then yes, you certainly should be required to compensate them. But as long as what you are doing is not actually harming other people, you should be allowed to do it without having to pay money or get a license from the government.

Sometimes it seems like there are more and more bad things happening in the world with respect to individual liberty – from the medical system to gun control to surveillance cameras to tax increases – and certainly a great deal of The Freedom Bulletin is dedicated to pointing out and fighting back against these injustices. But I thought it would be cool to point out some of the good things that have happened in the past week or so, some of the small and not-so-small victories for individual liberty:

Cuba legalized the purchase and sale of cars last Wednesday.

The town of Northampton, MA might allow households to have up to 12 chickens instead of just 3.

One week ago, New York eliminated the requirement for people to take eye tests when they renew their driver’s license.

Australia decided to allow women to serve in all roles in the armed forces, including on the front lines, which is a great decision in my opinion because only people’s abilities should determine what jobs they are allowed to do, not their gender.

The King of Saudi Arabia decided to allow women to vote and run for office in future elections.

Several states are relaxing their alcohol laws. For example, Atlanta might repeal its ban on alcohol sales on Sunday, and people touring the Jack Daniels distillery in Tennessee might be allowed to sample the whiskey.

Massachusetts is (hopefully) getting close to allowing casino gambling. The state senate is debating a bill to allow three casinos and a slots parlor after the house passed a similar bill.

The Death With Dignity ballot initiative in Massachusetts is getting a lot of publicity lately. Dr. Marcia Anell wrote an excellent opinion piece about it in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

A cool study came out a couple days ago showing that younger teenagers are not inherently worse drivers than older teenagers. As states have been putting more restrictions on teen drivers and increasing the minimum age to get a permit or a license, fatal crashes among 16- and 17-year-olds have decreased. But, contrary to what supporters of stricter laws thought would happen, fatal crashes among 18- and 19-year-olds increased by approximately the same amount.

This suggests that the stereotype of teenagers as reckless, overconfident, and irresponsible is false – they tend to get into more car crashes not because they are inherently worse at driving, but because they simply have less experience. By forcing people to wait till later and later ages before they can learn to drive, governments aren’t helping anyone. Perhaps if the driving age was lowered, say, to 14 or 15, then 16- and 17-year-olds would have fewer accidents. This study is good news for anyone who, like me, supports individual liberty and is opposed to stereotypes of people based on age.

In 2009, Massachusetts began charging people $25 to appeal traffic tickets to a clerk magistrate, and an additional $50 to appeal to a district court judge. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that these fees are constitutional, denying the appeals of Vincent Gillespie and Edward Hamel, who challenged their tickets in Northampton.

This got me thinking about whether fees to use the court system are, in general, a good idea. In all levels of the court system, people are regularly charged money to file civil suits or to appeal decisions. Supporters of such policies say that the fees raise needed funds and deter frivolous lawsuits, while preserving access to the courts because fee waivers are available for poor people.

While the court system undoubtedly is strapped for funds, and the last thing we need is more taxes, I don’t think that fees to appeal traffic tickets (or other rulings) are a fair method. Charging money to file an appeal punishes everyone, whether their appeal is frivolous or legitimate. And while indigent people might be able to get an exemption from the fee, this is not fair to everyone else who is deemed wealthy enough to pay. Even if the majority of traffic ticket appeals are without merit, the fees are an injustice to people who do have a good reason to appeal. It is wrong to force people who are unjustly ticketed to pay money in order to overturn a fine that should not have been imposed in the first place.

Being able to access the court system is a right, not something that people should have to pay for. Although the courts need money, this is not the best way to raise it.

From the Boston Globe…

“Now, an effort is underway to develop a new generation of blood-alcohol detection devices that work with just the touch of a button or require no driver interaction whatsoever, automatically analyzing the breath of anyone who gets behind the wheel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, an auto manufacturers group, are funding a $10 million study to create the high-tech instruments, which they hope will become a standard feature in cars and trucks, much like seat belts and air bags.”

Am I the only one who thinks this is a horrible idea? Why should innocent people be forced to prove that they are sober in order to use their cars?

That the devices won’t require you to actually blow into them does not change the fact that every time you get into your car, you are being monitored and controlled, forced to prove that you are fit to drive before being allowed to use your own car.

In order to have a life worth living, people need to have control over their own decisions. They need time to be alone, watched and monitored by no one but themselves. Thanks to the current medical culture, people forfeit their medical autonomy nearly every time they set foot in a doctor’s office. If you take medication, thanks to the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, a doctor monitors and controls that part of your life. Thanks to behaviorally-targeted advertising, people can no longer use the Internet in privacy. The TSA is gradually making it so that people cannot fly on airplanes without their naked bodies being examined. We should all be fighting to expand the sphere of our lives that we ourselves control, not to further shrink freedom by increasing societal control over individuals’ lives. A human life is not a mere part of society but something that should be controlled and monitored only by the person whose life it is. If you always put the greater good above individual rights, then everything people do, every moment of our lives, will be monitored, supervised, examined, and controlled by others. If that’s the case, everyone might as well be dead.

According to the article, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other organizations ”support research into making the devices palatable for the mainstream.”

Well, the only way these devices could be palatable to people who love liberty is if they don’t exist. Maybe MADD should rename their organization “Mothers Against Freedom.”

The Massachusetts legislature is trying to take away even more of people’s freedom than they already have, specifically the freedom to drive a car.

The version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives bans drivers from using cell phones without hands-free devices and from texting, and required drivers over 75 years old to have vision tests every 5 years in order to keep their licenses.

The Senate bill is even worse. It makes texting a primary offense, bans junior operators from using cell phones at all, and requires people at age 75, 80, and every three years thereafter to be tested by doctors in order to keep their license, although they are allowed to take a road test if that fails.

Why are people unable to understand that driving should be treated as a right, not a privilege? Texting does not violate anyone’s rights. Neither does using a cell phone. Neither does driving, no matter what age you are. It is true that texting, talking on the phone, and age affect the probability of being in an accident. Hitting someone with your car violates their rights. But doing something that might increase your chances of violating someone’s rights is not the same as violating someone’s rights. The government only has the right to ban the latter.

This is going to sound radical, but it is what I believe: People of all ages have a right to drive. We have a right to text and talk while driving. Forcing people to take tests, pay money, or undergo medical exams in order to drive violates our rights.

I am especially disturbed at the part of the Senate bill that forces elderly people to be screened by their doctors. Sen. Brian Joyce, one of the leaders in the fight against driving freedom, said that this “makes it a lot less threatening to seniors.” I completely disagree. I would much rather have a driving test at the RMV than a medical exam. A test of your driving abilities, by people who treat you as a person, preserves one’s privacy and dignity much more than being examined by a doctor. Although I am strongly opposed to requiring road tests for older drivers, I am even more strongly opposed to requiring medical exams. This law, if it passes, would be an almost unprecedented violation of liberty, on the level of the Durham-Humphrey Amendment and required strip searches at airports and much worse than taxes, gun bans, or security cameras. The government does require medical exams for certain jobs and if I’m not mistaken to attend public school, but they have never, to my knowledge, required adults to have a medical exam to do something as basic as driving. Mandating medical exams is the exact opposite direction that the world should be moving in.

I do not understand why so many purportedly pro-liberty people choose this issue on which to take a position that is diametrically opposed to their overall ideology. Why don’t the Libertarian Party, Republican Party, and Tea Party movement make a fuss over these abuses of our right to drive? Why are so few people willing to bravely take a stand?

If you live in Massachusetts and you agree with me, won’t you contact your state Senator and Representative and ask them to vote against all bills that further restrict people’s right to drive?

$660,000 of federal tax money is going to Massachusetts police to help them crack down on people who don’t wear seat belts. This includes both propaganda encouraging people to wear seat belts, as well as additional patrols to pull over “offenders.”

So tax dollars are being used to step up enforcement of a law that shouldn’t even exist because it decreases people’s freedom and benefits no one. Just another example of our paternalistic government sticking its nose into people’s business.

Source: Associated Press/Boston Herald