Begin.
Regarding the Coronavirus one argument that repeatedly pops up when you're arguing in favour of civil liberties is the drink-driving one. People will often say;
"..but we infringe people's civil liberties to stop them drink-driving because it's too risky. Do you want to make drink driving legal again??"(Oftentimes they will use "speed limit" laws instead of drink-driving, but it's essentially the same point.)
This is quite a good argument to be fair, and it can be a difficult one to counter, as pretty much everyone agrees that drink-driving should be illegal. So it then sets the precedent for laws to be set based upon a "potential" risk to other people. As opposed to normal laws that essentially forbid people from directly transgressing another person's liberties.
Live and let live is the usual rule of thumb ..BUT, we can't just let people drink-drive as it's clearly too dangerous to others. So we put aside this rule and use force against a person to forbid them from doing it. Even though they haven't actually done anything to anyone else yet.
So it's a tricky conundrum. We want to uphold live and let live to the maximum, but it's very hard to make a case against drink-driving laws in all good faith. Of course, there are plenty of issues like this, where we may want to prohibit certain things "to protect" society. So usually it's a balancing act. We try to offset the wider benefits for society against the infringements they place upon the individual.
So what about the lock down laws?
On the issue of balance it's quite easy to contrast the drink-driving laws with the draconian lock down laws. Not being able to drink whilst driving is a very minor and specific infringement. Not being able to leave your home or meet your friends and family is a major and far reaching one. I tend to use the word egregious when arguing with people :) I think it's very much justified.
Another is the process by which such laws have come about. Has there been due process, are there adequate checks and balances? Again, the difference is quite striking. Laws regarding motor vehicles have developed over time. We've had debates and arguments over decades that have led us to this point. Whereas the lock down laws have come into effect pretty much overnight. With little real debate. They're also completely unprecedented in this country. Likewise when you remove basic rights like this it makes it difficult for people to hold their governments to account. Not being able to drink-drive doesn't impede me from taking action to keep my government in check. Not being able to leave my home most certainly does. So it increases the "risk" of tyranny and all the bad things that may follow from that.
The above arguments are the ones I've generally been using when confronting this. They're fairly good and sensible arguments, but if you're debating someone who literally believes Covid-19 is the end of the world it can be difficult, as they believe the scale of the threat justifies the severity of the infringements.
Another argument?
However, there's a further argument - the reason for this very post in fact. I'm not quite sure how useful it is just yet, or how I'd work it into a compelling response, but it's worth exploring. So I'll run through it here. It essentially centres round the fact that a vehicle accentuates the powers of the person driving it, and hugely limits the other person's ability to "avoid" that person.
Normally, using the live and let live rule, we can make the argument.
"If you don't like what I'm doing you can just stay away from me".
So as a libertarian it's quite easy to make your case. In fact, the reason opponents choose the drink-driving example is because many of the other examples are easily batted away like this.
The other classic example that comes up is the smoking ban, which is fairly weak. Firstly we don't actually ban smoking outside in public. So even that classic case of nanny-ism doesn't come anywhere near the Corona strictures. Then on top of that it's easy to make a case for why businesses and venues should be allowed to have smoking. Again, no one's forcing anyone to go into a bar where people are smoking. If you don't like it don't go. Let people who are happy to take the risk enjoy themselves.
The same applies to most "risky" choices. Of course, I would apply it to face masks too :)
"If you don't like the fact that I'm not wearing a face mask you can avoid me. No one's forcing you to come near me!"
With cars though the power and speed of the vehicle accentuates things so much that it's much harder to make this argument. If you're walking down the road and a car comes veering at you at 80 mph then yes, technically, you're free to move out of the way, but the speed of the car makes it near impossible. A human can't compete with a car. Plus the force of the car means that if it does hit you you're highly likely to die or be seriously injured. So these things help to justify the preemptive or "preventative" nature of laws forbidding drink-driving or excessive speed.
The car in a way gives the human driving it an agency beyond what a human would naturally have. So it's a bit of an unnatural situation. It's a little similar to the argument about gun rights in that sense. Another issue that very much falls into this category of debate. Lock down lovers could raise this argument in the UK too, but oddly they haven't so far. Perhaps they fear their opponents might argue in favour 😅 ..I'm quite tempted to myself given the imposition of this lock down (!)
So anyway, perhaps it's technologies that amplify human agency to an extreme extent that really give libertarians a headache.
For instance, we don't need laws against drink-rollerskating as the speed and weight they add to the person skating isn't especially excessive. We can keep out of their way, and if we can't it's probably not going to be the end of the world. (Though I'm sure in this age of health and safety there are no doubt numerous rules and regulations about where you can and can't roller skate, and under what circumstances sadly.)
So maybe I can develop an argument that plays upon this unnatural extreme factor.
... Wow, I've been going quite a while. I always say "hopefully this'll be a short post" but that never happens. I better draw a line under things before I go on for any longer.
No comments:
Post a Comment