January 30, 2010

Restrictions against texting-while-driving were debated at the University of Minnesota in January, in a panel discussion on technology and civil liberties. Libertarians were invited to participate in a forum organized by the Political Science Department for 300 metro-area junior and senior high school students. Three panel sessions were held on various current issues, with over 75 students participating in the texting-while-driving forum.

While a texting-while-driving (TWD) ban has already passed in Minnesota, current public debate centers on whether such a ban should be implemented by the federal government. Two panelists presented “pro” and “con” positions, after which the students formed “juries” to deliberate. They announced their consensus to a public official, former U.S. Congressman Tim Penny, who continues to lobby at the federal level.

In support of laws banning TWD was City of Shakopee police officer Brian Clark, who presented statistics and examples of the harm resulting from motorists who were distracted by texting. An opposing view was given by LPMN Vice Chair S.L. Malleck, who discussed why TWD laws are unnecessary, counterproductive, and even unethical.

Both practical and principled arguments were presented for why TWD laws should be opposed:

  • Sometimes TWD is perfectly safe. An excerpt from MnDOT‘s Traffic Signal Design Manual was shown to students, where MnDOT states that “The average driver in the United States spends six months of his or her life waiting at traffic signals” [1]. With motorists wasting so much time at red lights, it would be appropriate to accomplish something productive like sending a text message. The only risk might be a honk from the driver behind when the light turns green. Ironically, texting at a red light is when a motorist would be most likely to be ticketed, when a police officer pulls up in an adjacent lane.
  • New laws will be ignored. A chart was shown illustrating the growth of federal laws and regulations over the decades. Laws by states and ordinances by cities & counties show the same runaway growth pattern. In just 2009 alone, over 40,000 new laws were passed by states. Laws are being piled on top of laws; there are already so many laws that it’s impossible for citizens to know them all. The result is that a TWD ban will likely be ignored by the public.
  • Laws often encroach beyond their original intent. It is unknown to what extent police may be allowed to enforce a TWD ban. During a police stop, officers could be permitted to search a motorist’s cellphone to verify that they were not texting. If so, this would open a pandora’s box where motorists could land in even more serious trouble. As an example, police could find a sexting message on the cellphone. A motorist pulled over merely for TWD could find themselves arrested under child pornography charges, even though child-porn laws were never intended to attack teenage girls who voluntarily send racy photos of themselves to their boyfriends. Another example of a law enforced beyond its intent was shown: an article of a man convicted of DWI, even though there was no evidence he’d been driving. Can you have DWI without the D? A police officer thought so, and the courts agreed. Once passed, new laws often become a “blank check” for the expansion of government power, entangling even peaceful citizens in the dragnet.
  • Frivolous laws distract police from real crime. If police are busy ticketing people for TWD, they will be less available to track down leads for burglaries or crimes where there’s real harm and real victims.
  • Frivolous laws are really about revenue generation. Politicians dislike raising taxes because it widely upsets people. Instead, they’ve turned to finding marginally unacceptable activities which they can outlaw and levy fines against, thus generating revenue. Essentially, they’re raising taxes by using law enforcement as a backdoor method.
  • Natural consequences of irresponsibility provide adequate punishment. If a motorist is texting while driving and causes an accident, he or she may incur thousands of dollars in car repairs and medical bills, plus damage and perhaps medical costs of the other person as well. Even if covered by insurance, the motorist will have to pay higher insurance premiums for years to come. These are tremendous consequences of texting irresponsibly. A police officer’s fine is pointless and unnecessary, merely “salt in the wound”. The serious natural consequences are enough of a punishment, but most importantly, these consequences act as a strong disincentive against irresponsible behavior.
  • Responsible citizens must make their own decisions. People often decry that “Young adults aren’t very responsible these days, so that’s why we need laws”. But more laws are exactly the wrong approach. The reason many don’t use good judgement is because they’re not allowed to use judgement. How can people become responsible adults when all the decisions are being made for them? America is rapidly becoming a land where everything that is not banned is mandatory. By contrast, in a free society, citizens learn to become individually responsible and self-reliant. Society doesn’t need obedient people who are accustomed to following orders, it needs responsible citizens who can think for themselves.
  • Advocating a law is advocating violence. Likely for the first time, students were introduced to the “voluntaryist” perspective so often discussed on the libertarian talk radio program Free Talk Live. When those who want to control others support a new law, they’re advocating violence against their neighbors. After all, the government doesn’t make recommendations or offer friendly advice, it issues edicts which are backed by threats. For those who won’t obey, it follows through with force. Most people never stop to consider the paradox between how we all live our daily lives, and how the government operates. Everyone understands that extorting money and kidnapping are wrong, yet people do not question the government’s method of forcing people to pay fines and holding them in jail if a fine isn’t paid. In other words, it’s a crime … unless the government does it. Government is diametrically opposed to the voluntary nature of personal, business, and community interaction in the rest of society; it’s the only institution which regularly uses threats and violence, and gets away with it. Supporting a law is highly unethical, because the use of institutionalized violence has no place in a civilized society.

A better solution was proposed to students. For those who believe that TWD is a risky activity, but who find laws distasteful for the reasons presented, how else can TWD be discouraged? The answer is the same as how we interact with people every day: try to convince them. Anyone concerned about TWD should talk to family and friends about the issue, speak in public about the dangers of TWD, or organize a marketing campaign, perhaps mailing flyers to their neighborhood or advertising on highway billboards. Encouraging individuals to make the right decision is superior to the highly flawed law-based approach.

Finally, students were shown a cartoon illustrating the underlying quandary. Everyone wants the freedom to make our own choices, yet we tend to be skeptical of our neighbors. But anytime you support a law that takes away someone’s freedom, chances are good that next time they will support a law which takes away a freedom you find important. In order for us to enjoy liberty, we must be willing to stand up for our neighbor’s liberty too … even if we may disagree with the choices they make.

After both panelists finished speaking, the students deliberated, then announced their consensus. On the issue of whether a TWD ban should be passed on the federal level, only one-third agreed. The remaining two-thirds thought that states should have the ability to pass a TWD law. However, on the question of whether TWD laws should actually be implemented, approximately half of the students disagreed. Their conclusions, presented to former Congressman Tim Penny, cited several of the libertarian arguments they had heard. In particular, the students decided TWD should not be a primary offense; any law should apply only if TWD results in harm, and not simply for texting activity if a motorist is at a stoplight or on the shoulder. They also strongly supported a promotional campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of TWD.

While not all students opposed a TWD law, many did. The pro-liberty arguments that were presented had a significant impact on their thinking. This demonstrates that people are receptive to the libertarian message, when Libertarians are given the opportunity to be heard.

Concerned about the relentless expansion of government control and the erosion of individual liberty? Consider joining and becoming active in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota. Libertarians stand in support of liberty on all issues, all the time. Libertarianism is a philosophical and political movement promoting individual freedom, voluntary interaction, genuine free markets, and peace.

References:

  1. Minnesota Department of Transportation, “MnDOT Signal Design Manual”, Winter 2005, page 4-7.