LIBERTARIANplace

	Close Encounters with the Nanny State __________________________________________________

Balancing Liberty and Personal Responsibility: A Dialogue between a Reader and the Author in Response to "A Night in Jail"


The Reader's Comment

John,

I read your feature article and I truly regret that unreasonable force
was used against you.  In the area where I live it seems that state and
local government are on the attack against citizenry when it comes to
traffic enforcement.  There are only three approachs to my suburban
neighborhood, and two of the three now have automated speed cameras. 
The fine is $40 and there are no points applied to your license, but
there are at least two disturbing elements to the enforcement program. 
First, the program is operated on a pay-per-ticket basis by a private
company.  Citizens have no ability to face their accuser as the accuser
is a machine operated by the out-of-state employee of a large company. 
Second, the violations are issued to the owner of the car, who may or
may not be the driver at the time of the alleged violation.

In my state we have some hope of overturning the law that authorizes the
use of speed cameras, through a future referendum.  But even if the
program were simply cleaned up to overcome all of my objections against
the manner of operation, I would still resent the notion of 24/7
automated enforcement, just as you might resent the restriction against
using your cell phone while driving.  Part of my resentment is
philosophical, but part is simply because I am just self-centered enough
to hate being told what I can or cannot do.  And this brings me to the
point I would like to offer you.

While you and I might not like restrictions on our personal liberties,
there is always a line that we must watch carefully if we wish to
encourage others to share our libertarian beliefs.  The line we must
avoid crossing is that which delineates our selfishness from someone
else's right to safety.  Of course I would like to speed just a bit when
I choose, but the child who walks that same road each morning has a
right to expect motorists to stay within a reasonable speed, so he may
properly judge the timing of his crossing.   And while your business
schedule may suffer if you are forced to park in NY State while making
your calls, perhaps other motorists may enjoy a measure of freedom from
the distracted drivers that we all see straddling lanes and erratically
varying their speed.

If I may be so bold, I would like to offer another observation.  After
reading your article I had one strong reaction that perhaps others may
share.  I was struck that you attributed your ill treatment exclusively
to others - you did not acknowledge your own personal responsibility. 
If you step back a moment and set aside any emotion over the incident,
you might see that your decisions and actions set in motion the events
that culminated on that difficult night.  You chose to speed, causing
the original traffic stop.  You chose to use your cell phone.  And
there's really no excuse for your failure to pay the original fine,
which caused your NY privilege to be suspended. Should the authorities
have handled you differently?  Absolutely...  But you were in the wrong
as well.

John, I don't know you and I have no right or interest in scolding you,
so please accept my comments in the following context:  If we wish to
promulgate our beliefs in limited government, emphasizing the liberty
the founders offered us, we must each be cognizant of the need to
demonstrate personal responsibility.  Otherwise we will show the face of
libertarianism as one of selfishness.

Thank you for your work.

Best wishes,

Mike Ward

The Author's Response

Mike,
Thank you for this very well reasoned and presented response. I am going to post it on the website as a response to the original article with a link. I think it offers another element and dimension of the cause for liberty. You echo sentiments communicated by a few others, but expressed them better and more tactfully. I think adding your comments to the original article will give it more integrity.

It was not my intent to focus on my own plight, my emotions, or imply that I was blameless in the matter. It was my intent to use the experience as a way of illustrating what can happen when an attempt by the state to micromanage our lives gets carried to the full extent of consequences that bear little relevance to the original offense.

The law against using cell phones while driving was enacted in good faith, no doubt, by someone who wanted to protect innocent drivers from distracted drivers. But I doubt that the person who authored the bill would have intended that a respectable community leader with no criminal history would have to spend a night in jail as a consequence of violating this law, even for failure to pay the fine. And why only cell phones? It's a slippery slope as I'm sure you know. Why not also doing makeup, reading the paper, reading the billboards on the side of the road-- any, all or hundreds of other things like these while driving? Why isn't the law against careless driving sufficient? If I can drive responsibly while using a cell phone, fine. If you're weaving all over the road while you talk, then you can get a ticket for various other violations already on the books.

I know, I'm preaching to the choir. Perhaps I could have or should have or should still rework the article to emphasize these points more clearly. And maybe I will. In the meantime, I'll post your note and let it create the balance.

And, thanks for the comments on electronic monitoring. You are right to say that this is a violation of liberty. Those of us who are inclined, should work to get the damned things banned. 

Thanks,
John