RSS 2.0
5/8/2008 - 10:40 am
[Edit: Just to clarify, this is not about cell phones. This is about personal freedom. Comments should answer the more general question posed in paragraph two.]
I’m going to pose a question to my audience. It is a contentious, divisive question. It may well spawn some comment wars. In truth, I kind of hope it does. Not that I’m encouraging angry “flame wars.” But I would like to see some lively (yet courteous) debate. “Why?” you might ask. Because I’m undecided on the issue and I want to see the pros and cons offered. That’s what debate is all about, right?
So here’s the issue: Where do we draw the line between personal freedom and responsible governance?
A community here in the DFW metroplex has proposed an ordinance making it a ticketable offense to use a cell phone while driving in a school zone. Talk radio is all ablaze with the personal freedom crowd attacking the city. They call it a slippery slope. They equate it to smoking bans in liberal cities on both coasts. Some have brought up seat belt and helmet laws in the same context.
However, I dare say that 99% of those bawling about the cell phone ban are in favor of banning abortion and most would prefer our government close it’s iron fist around illegal immigrants.
The difference between a cell phone ban and abortion is, admittedly, elementary. But what I want to know is where is the line? If helmet laws invade our personal rights, what about speed limits? Driver’s licenses? Vehicle taxes? If anti-smoking laws are draconian, why not legalize pot? Cocaine? Meth?
Let’s hear it? After a few days, I’ll come revisit the issue, give my opinion, and try to sort out the best points from both sides.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Since talking on a cell phone while driving, just like smoking in a public restruant, endangers those around you, the personal freedom must be curtailed, regulated or restrained.
Comment by Ghosty — 5/8/2008 @ 12:30 pm
You say cell phones, he says eating, she says CDs, audio books, radios. What else? Talking to a passenger, humming to yourself, reaching for a cigarett, change for the toll road? Where is the line? Why don’t we just all stay home in our recliners and be safe? Don’t drive, reproduce or fart. We are destroying the world!!
Comment by Sandra — 5/8/2008 @ 10:17 pm
The problem is that there is no single “right” answer. I agree with Ghosty that when you begin talking about behavior that affects the people around you, you automatically sacrifice certain personal freedoms. You’re completely free to walk around your house naked, but that behavior is not acceptable in public.
I tend to stress personal responsibility over government regulation, but clearly there are situations when government regulation is necessary. In the case of using cell phones in school zones, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal either way. None of the proponents of the ban have proven that school zones are that much safer by implementing the ban, but yet I don’t feel like my personal liberties are threatened by the ban either.
I do think that since 9/11, there has been more of a pressure to surrender some of our personal freedoms for the sake of “national security”, and much of that, I believe, has gone too far. (Wiretapping, searching laptops at the border, etc.) But again, unfortunately there is no single “right” answer. While some people may feel violated any time they have to take off their shoes and belt at the airport, others may not care. Such is the nature of democracy.
Comment by jason — 5/9/2008 @ 9:31 am
Where do we draw the line between personal freedom and responsible governance?
Personal freedom is in essence the concept of having the right to do something. Since rights come with responsibility we need to evaluate the actual need for the right to talk on your cell phone. If you need to talk on your cell phone are you being responsible in how you do it? Do you use a headset? Are you one of the bluetooth zombies? Can you walk and chew gum at the same time?
The problem is the often with the complexity of ‘lowest common denominator’ rules. If one out of ten shouldn’t be driving while on the cell phone, but that one person could kill others while driving: the problem because one of also bringing in the sanctity of life. Since I believe that sanctity of life is important, I am all about figuring out how many people are really dangerous while talking on a cell phone in various ways. If 98% of drivers are safe with headsets/speaker phone then I’m OK with making laws about headsets or speakerphone being required. Or, if it needs to be 21 or under must drive without cell phone of any sort with any sort of headset/speakerphone, that’s OK, too.
The problem is often that the studies aren’t done in the first place. Congressional studies on terrorism have shown over and over that measures they’re taking will have almost zero effect, but by doing something they can say they tried if something goes on in the future.
We need to address the problem without ever coming close to merely focusing on the cell phone issue, which is probably just a symptom. Car radios, passengers, children, the woman who is driving topless next to you while putting on eye makeup: they all distract. If cell phones are a distraction and need to be banned so should other signage such as advertising that distract us from the road, other vehicles and traffic signs. I doubt we’ll see advertising banned, though, and killing the cell phone industry is something that our current legislative branch is going to do, not with the lobbyists giving them ‘free’ stuff to persuade their votes.
Comment by Randy Peterman — 5/11/2008 @ 1:42 pm
OK, last night after driving home from Mothers Day Dinner I saw an idiot in an SUV driving slower than the speed limit in the fast lane straddling one of the suicide-lane dividers. As I cautiously passed I looked in the window and saw that the driver was on the cell phone. Kill them all. Destroy all of the cell phones yesterday.
Comment by Randy Peterman — 5/12/2008 @ 1:42 pm
I just get freaked out when I see a guy in a car talking to himself; I usually assume that he has a Bluetooth in his ear. Then, when I pass him really fast in the school zone, as I weave in and out of children, I notice that he’s not wearing a headset. He’s just another schizophrenic nut job endangering the lives of others. That’s what scares me.
Comment by Dave Matthews — 5/12/2008 @ 4:31 pm
First what is freedom? It is the God given right to choose the rules(controls and standards) we will exist(live) under. Gravity is not a freedom. Freedom is the control of choice and the degree of impact of the decision or selection has on our environment. Prudent and truthful judgment of the cause and effect of a choice can determine the need for control. Mankind(as individuals)for the most part (you have the choice not to be selfish) is self centered and will demand control regardless of the cause and effect results on others or self. I have a strong belief and have come to realize I have the most “freedom” when I am responsive to “love thy neighbor as thy self” as a control and/or the development of law and order. It would be difficult for me to think that as mother demanding the freedom to use her cell phone wants to grieve the loss of her child by another mother’s demand and use of a cell phone that caused a delayed reaction and thus a killing. The “control” is often required to prevent the loss of others’ right to choose the controls they wish to live by. When we(self centered) can not control ourselves we need to be regulated to limit the damage to others or the loss of the right seek happiness. Of course there are those that do not or can not THINK. Now lets explore why we are dealing with self centered behavior for the next exchange of ideas project. So far I am realizing that for me it requires truth and supernaturual input to CONTROL self. God guard and guide you and yours, Pa
Comment by Kenneth Ladd — 5/14/2008 @ 8:07 am