 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The United States Senate voted 99-0 to require that all states adjust their legal limit for blood alcohol to .08, down from the limit of .10 that many states had established. (And down from an original limit of .15.) If the laggard states do not comply with this new requirement, they face losing federal highway funds.
The feds have used this tactic before: to impose fifty-five mile per hour speed limits; for requiring motorcycle helmets; and for raising the drinking age to twenty-one. I've written before about this kind of government extortion (see "'Or Else...'," published in The Freeman). What grabbed my attention this time, however, was an argument I had over dinner concerning the advisability and legality of this federal mandate.
My friend -- we'll call him "Ernst" -- said that "someone should do something!" about drunk drivers since states had -- in his opinion -- failed to do a good job of dealing with this danger. He related an anecdote about a young man of his acquaintance who had been convicted a number of times of DWI. The youthful perpetrator, he declared indignantly, was soon out driving again despite a suspended license. (Imagine that, I thought: someone who had broken the law doing so again...) Ernst (a native of Denmark) thought that drunk drivers did not suffer sufficiently for their transgressions of the peace. A year's license suspension was "nothing." He believed drunk drivers should serve hard time.
Not only did my friend argue against what he viewed as leniency in punishment, he said there should be "zero tolerance" of drinking and driving. He indicated his approval of the draconian laws implemented in some Scandinavian countries: any alcohol in your blood while you're driving should be punishable by jail time and confiscation of your automobile.
Since our discussion took place in a restaurant, I blinked and took another sip of my beer.
"But having one or two beers does not usually pose a threat to anyone," I countered. After all, under normal circumstances, your body metabolizes a drink's worth of alcohol each hour. In the two hours we were at the restaurant, for instance, I had two beers. By the time we left, the alcohol would be almost entirely processed away. If Ernst's view were valid as a basis for law (he would drink nothing, he said, since he was driving), I should be arrested and slapped behind bars as soon as I ventured outside and entered my car.
"Evidence shows that those who constitute the real danger to others," I said, "are drivers whose blood alcohol is over .15. Lowering the legal limit to .08 will accomplish nothing other than to make criminals of ordinary people who are not a significant menace."
My dining companion would have none of it. Even one drink can cause impairment, he said.
"So can being sleepy," I said. "Are you going to arrest people who are tired, as well?"
He chose not to respond to that or to explain how our legal system would deal with arresting, fining, and imprisoning the myriad of drivers who had the misfortune of yawning while passing a police car. He doggedly stuck to his vague contention that any impairment -- to any degree -- disqualified a person from getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.
Flabbergasted though I was by this style of "argumentation," I gained a valuable insight from this aggravating encounter. Ernst's attitude -- his confidence in the competence and benevolence of the omnipotent State -- revealed what might be termed an inversion of the old adage, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
This latter statement is often invoked in political discussions by those who advocate the acceptance of incremental improvements in our political situation. They state that as a proponent of greater freedom, you should, for example, accept concealed carry permits despite the fact that you favor no restrictions at all for law-abiding adults. Don't oppose tax reductions merely because you believe all taxation is theft and that taxation should immediately be reduced to zero. Be willing to promote the legalization of medical marijuana even though you oppose the Drug War in any and all of its aspects. Work for educational vouchers and ignore the fact that you think there should be a complete separation between school and state.
As long as we inch closer to our goals, they say, we are better off. Minor improvements can change cultural attitudes and set the stage for later advances down the road.
(Others argue against these kinds of compromises on moral grounds or in the belief that improvements in social conditions diminish incentives for change. The new level of "comfortable" statism becomes the accepted norm and thus inhibits the motivation of citizens to undergo any further potentially painful movements towards greater liberty. It also grants the legitimacy of the State's efforts to control you.)
Regardless of the relative merits of these arguments on "the perfect versus the good," my friend essentially rejected any compromise in what the government should permit. Unknowingly, he applied the mind-set established and promoted by radical environmentalists to this new arena of life.
Those whom I term eco-fascists (see my "Eco-Fascism") will accept nothing short of zero levels of, for example, pesticide use or residue in our food. Zero "pollution" (more properly "waste," in most instances) in our air. Zero readings of radiation (such as from radon) in our homes.
They are blithefully unconcerned with rational risk assessment or whether the "problem" they rail against actually poses any harm, at all...let alone a significant hazard. (For example, research shows that people who are exposed to certain low levels of radiation from the environment actually suffer fewer of certain types of cancers than many who "enjoy" near zero exposure.)
This attitude has already infected and infested our schools with their "zero tolerance" levels against "violence," "guns," and "drugs." Now it has apparently infiltrated even further into the public psyche.
Seeking to constrain the actions of individuals to the point where there is no possibility they might conceivably cause injury to another flings open the doors to an endless stream of State interference into our lives. Simply engaging in the process of living carries with it the chance that you may unintentionally harm someone else.
Over 50,000 people are killed annually in car accidents in this country. If someone is, in fact, driving in a sufficiently impaired condition that he stands as a clear and present danger, then he should, of course, be stopped. Whether this situation is created because the driver is drunk, falling asleep, high on drugs, distracted by talking on a cell phone or yelling at the kids in the back seat, he should be held responsible and accountable for his actions. The degree of his guilt should vary according to the willfulness of his misbehavior -- is he knowingly and recklessly engaging in dangerous behavior or is he guilty primarily of negligence? -- but the simple act of drinking, taking an antihistamine, or chatting with a friend should not, in and of itself, automatically and mindlessly qualify you for an orange jump suit and a free stay in the city jail.
Perfect safety may be pleasant to contemplate or to argue about. It is, however, impossible to achieve and undesirable even if it could be. Someone might suffer an asthma attack and die because you wear cologne or perfume. Shall we make splashing on those fragrances a capital offense and ban them? You might bump into someone on a crowded sidewalk and send him sprawling to crack his head on the concrete and die. Shall we prohibit sidewalks? Walking in crowds?
Travelers fly to countries around the globe. They may contract a flu virus in China and bring it back to the United States, infecting thousands or millions. Or a plane may fall from the sky and smash into your home. Shall we declare travel illegal and destroy every airplane to eliminate the risks they create by their very existence?
You could compile a wearyingly long list of minor and major dangers lurking around every corner and threatening us every minute of the day. If we adopted the principle suggested by Ernst, none of those potentially lethal activities would be tolerated.
But, of course, if we banned cars, outlawed planes and travel, disposed of pesticides, confiscated and destroyed civilian guns, made medical research verboten, declared interpersonal contact taboo in order to eliminate the theoretical (or sometimes very real) dangers they posed, we would all be immeasurably less safe than otherwise.
Ernst refused to recognize the reality of tradeoffs, of cost-and-benefit analysis, of the fact that existence itself requires risk. Only death provides the eternal succor and safety he is obsessed to achieve. For him, the "perfect" is not the enemy of the "good." Ernst does not even admit that the "good" is good. Anything less than his fantastical "perfect solution" is an unmitigated and not-to-be-tolerated evil. His goal is not an ideal to be pursued as are the ideals of freedom and morality. His way leads inexorably to slavery and death.
I choose liberty and life. I always will.
