Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, there are two core concepts I'm seeing at this debate that really can be resolved with a little bit of logic as long as one understands where the legal precedence comes from in all of this.
One side doesn't think it's the job of the government to ban things like cellphones usage while driving because it overreaches their powers or makes them too "police-state-ish."
There's another side who believes that if a ban is going to be put in place it should happen at the state level and not at the federal level while others don't really care as long as a ban is put in place.
Here's how I examine any legislation to determine if it's within the boundaries of the government to legislate and whether or not they're doing it for the good of the citizens or just to empower itself:
In John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, he philosophically mused over what the actual purpose of government was. After all, the world had, up until that time, largely only known monarchal or tyrannical rule with only a few exceptions and somehow people did seem to fare better than those with a government.
Let's take a look at complete and utter anarchy (absolutely no government at all). There's no police force, no laws, no fire houses, nothing... What do you think the U.S. would be like in that situation? It's quite possible that New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina would be a good example. People would be looting, stealing, rioting, etc... Or, as Locke put it, there would be no protection of "life, liberty and estates."
In other words, Locke puts forth the concept that the purpose of government is to protect people's lives, their liberty and their estates. That is the quintessential necessity for government to exist. In many ways, even some of the worst governments do protect those three things from other members of society - but they often have a tendency to take those protections like a mob extortionist who is "protecting you" for a fee and that's where Thomas Jefferson comes in.
Jefferson was probably one of the most well-read individuals of his time and probably ours too. Having read Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Jefferson knew all too well that government's may protect people's lives, their liberty, and their estates but they had a tendency to do so at the expense of losing those things to a tyrannical government.
Jefferson, as part of a broader scheme of truly nailing down freedoms in the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, altered those words by Locke to reflect a truly profound idea. The purpose of government, in Jefferson's mind, was to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And that's where that particular phrase comes from.
Anytime we ask ourselves what a federal mandate on something does, we should ask ourselves whether it protects the greater majority of people to have "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Stop. This is where you are woefully stepping outside the boundaries, and taking creative license with the principles of liberty as embraced by Jefferson and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Our Constitutional Republic is not a "Democracy", which the founders considered despotic .... "The greater good" (mob rule) has no place of justification in the context of American liberty. The fundamental principle in American liberty is the defense of "individual liberty", regardless of the ideas or positions or ideological views of a "greater majority". Jefferson would likely throw up in his mouth to hear such talk insinuating the "greater good" as THE determining factor in the definition of liberty. This is the CORE of socialism-communism .... this "greater good" nonsense!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
For example, we could take an extreme case and suppose that we should legalize murder. If we did so, the government would be remiss simply because those who murder may have the liberty to do so and it may even make them happy, but it would take away a greater number of people's lives and their own pursuit of liberty and happiness.
That's a terribly poor example. One can go back to at least 2,000 years to the basic "Thou Shalt Not Kill" ... with no society considering such things as wanton murder as a legitimate act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
So, when we look at a cellphone ban what are the arguments we can make in this context? Well, a ban on cellphones does inhibit the liberty of those who wish to drive and talk on their phone at the same time. I think we can all agree on that. But, are the distractions of cell phone driving such a risk that it greatly affects another person's life, their own liberty or their pursuit of happiness?
There is no context when comparing cell phone use to murder. We all should be able to agree on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
For this, we cannot simply take one example of a driver talking on his phone who smashed into a family of five - killing all of them. Yes, they are emotional arguments and they can be effective for many people but we have to rule out statistical anomalies and judge the overall efficacy of cell phone drivers and whether they pose a substantially greater risk to individual drivers.
Statistically, a growing number of studies and tests has shown that talking while driving is nearly as dangerous as drinking and driving and a number of tests have shown that texting while driving is an even GREATER danger than drinking and driving.
Beware some of these links are directly to .pdf files:
I haven't read every single paper every published on cell phone usage while driving but the data seems to be pretty consistent albeit with a few caveats. Most of the tests have been done in a simulator where drunk drivers, people talking on their phones, and texting on their phones could drive in safety without causing harm to other people. In many of these tests, the drunk driver performed better or equal to the cell phone users. What gives?
Although this is somewhat believable, we all know there is a degree of drunkenness whereas there is pretty much one single degree of talking on the phone or texting. I can be swerving all over the road and blow a .21 or I can have just a little delayed reaction to things and blow a .08. One is dramatically more dangerous than the other.
Another factor is the "fear factor" of being caught by police. In a simulator, the test subject knows that no matter what they do, they are in a consequence-free situation. They're not going to jail and, if they cause an accident, they're only smashing 1's and 0's on a computer screen - not actual people and lives. This "fear factor" may increase or decrease a person's ability to drive depending on how well they respond to pressure.
So, in my opinion, it is possible that some of the data is not entirely accurate based on this. Then again, for the sake of ethical research and studies, we would never want to endanger the lives of other people just to truly know the data. It's one of those things we have to live with. We could certainly make those simulations "worth something" though.
The fact is, statistics can be used to support any argument, and all of the if's and's and but's you highlight is a testament to that .... but that's really not the greater point to all of this .... one of the hidden points is the "preemptive nature" of drunk driving laws, and how those laws have been extended beyond their original intent of making the highways safer, along with the error in using one false doctrine to defend another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop
The core concept, though, is something most of us already know. Drivers who talk and text and weave in and out of traffic while they're doing it or cut you off as they talk about their lives, are a greater risk to everyone on the road. As the law stands in most states right now, that individual's freedom to talk on the phone is greater than the lives, the liberty and the pursuit of happiness for every single person on the road. We must ask ourselves one question: Is the freedom of one person to talk on their phone while driving greater than the potential loss of freedom for another person? If someone loses their legs or their arm or their life in a car accident because of someone talking or texting while driving, was the person's liberty to talk or text greater than the loss of life or limb of the victim? Statistically, as these things stack up greater and greater, we can ask ourselves the same of every single incident in America where an accident was caused by such distracted driving to get a better statistical analysis of the threat of loss of liberty by such drivers.
Whether that is a state or a federal legislation issue can be a greater matter of debate (I happen to think it's a state issue that may need prodding by the federal government) but there's no question, in my mind, that something needs to be done.
With all of the thought that obviously went into this analysis ... I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.
The "REAL" point is the concept of preemptive laws to prevent an undesirable outcome, and how that negatively affects the liberty of everyone.
For example .... murder and manslaughter are against the law, and presumably, the penalties for committing such crimes are designed to 1) punish offenders 2) discourage those offenses. However, what we've found is that no matter how severe the penalties are for committing murder, it hasn't seemed to make much difference to the murderers. They still do it. This is one of the arguments in the debate about the death penalty. But comparing this to cell phone use or drinking and driving is apples and oranges because one is an intentional act of inflicting harm, while the other is not in and of itself inflicting harm on anyone ... only the potential for such an outcome, and that is the DIFFERENCE.
Take murder .... when you attempt to prevent such crimes by banning the possession of firearms, this is an attempt to preempt a crime before it happens. Such laws then make the mere possession of a firearm itself a criminal offense in the absence of a real crime involving a true victim. And this not only strips the liberty of everyone to possess a firearm, but is contrary to the principles of common law in which the premise is, there must be harm caused, and a real victim harmed, before a crime has been committed. This is indeed impacting the liberty of all, in a foolish attempt to prevent the unpreventable.
The fundamental flaw in banning firearms to prevent murder is exactly the same scenario as banning cell phone use to prevent accidents. There are just too many ways for a murderer to commit murder, and too many causes for automobile accidents. Are we gonna ban everything that could be used to commit murder? Knives ... rope ... baseball bats? What about all of the possible causes of accidents? Where does one draw the line? Don't you see how unworkable and silly such an idea actually is? Or, how this is the very antithesis of fundamental liberty?
The exact same situation exists in trying to prevent accidents. Neither situation can be prevented, no matter how many laws you enact, and trying to do such things is a dreadfully dangerous threat to everyone's fundamental liberties, and just another step in the wrong direction on an already too worn path of authoritarianism under the false doctrine of preemptive laws in which the only victim is the "State" ... i.e. the United States vs Joe Blow. But there is no real victim or real crime .. the "State" simply alleges itself to be a victim, even though the simple possession of a firearm doesn't inflict harm anymore than talking on the phone inflicts harm on someone.
In my opinion, this argument can be consolidated in one simple premise that our founding fathers would surely agree with ... "Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety and security, deserve neither liberty or security".
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions .... and what may seem like a good idea can have vastly negative consequences unforeseen by those lacking the foresight to recognize that there are too many examples that show that the "Government" really doesn't care very much about your life, liberty or happiness. This is PRECISELY why we have the Constitution in the first place .... to force them to respect those things, in spite of their natural tendency to ignore them.
Whenever the government proposes another great idea or law to "protect you" ... you can bet there is another agenda afoot having nothing to do with such "loving care", but serves another purpose that is more likely to be contrary to your best interests in the long run.
History .... not statistics ... will prove this fact out.
Obama's continued war on business. Now he's attempting to force decreased productivity for those who work from within their vehicles.
Tell yourself that when one of them t-bones your car in an intersection and you wake up in critical care, if you wake up at all. We were doing just fine before people descided that their car was in reality a phone booth.
Tell yourself that when one of them t-bones your car in an intersection and you wake up in critical care, if you wake up at all. We were doing just fine before people descided that their car was in reality a phone booth.
Regardless, regulating cell phone use while driving is not a federal government responsibility. The states can pass laws on their own.
I should be able to as I please within my own vehicle. If I actually do something to endanger others, there are already laws on the books to deal with my actions.
Talking on a phone while driving is not a danger in and of itself and millions do it daily without incident.
Obama's continued war on business. Now he's attempting to force decreased productivity for those who work from within their vehicles.
If people actually work from their vehicles, there are good hands free options. But I'm sick of people weaving all over the road, causing wrecks, and then the few who kill people because they're trying to drive and dial or worse, text.
If people actually work from their vehicles, there are good hands free options. But I'm sick of people weaving all over the road, causing wrecks, and then the few who kill people because they're trying to drive and dial or worse, text.
It should be as illegal as drinking and driving.
Improper lane usage and careless/reckless driving laws within the individual states already cover those scenarios.
You sound law happy
.
Obama's continued war on business. Now he's attempting to force decreased productivity for those who work from within their vehicles.
What? Business was done before the cell phone. I think companies will be okay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.A Fruedian typo?
