I'm back. Last night I was having yet another argument with someone (Twitter once again) and the drink driving analogy popped up. Again in relation to lock down law and mask mandates. The argument being that we have laws that infringe our freedoms to stop drink driving and other vehicle related offences, therefore we can have laws to restrict movement, impose mask-wearing, etc.
I touched upon this back in June with my post We Need Drunk-Rollerskating Laws ; where I made a few basic counterpoints to this argument. The main ones being:
a) Driving restrictions are relatively minor infringements compared to these much more far-reaching ones.
b) We've had proper debate, oversight and due process when bringing in driving restrictions.
c) Cars amplify the power of the person driving. For example, if I see someone walking down the street not wearing a face mask I can choose to avoid that person. However, if a car comes at me at 80mph it's much more difficult for me to avoid it. Though technically I'm free to do so. As a car is much faster than a human. Likewise the force of the car makes serious or deadly injury much more likely. In stark comparison to mask wearing where the risk is minimal.
Anyway..
There are two points I want to add in this post. The first is another point to add to the above list, and the second concerns the disingenuous attitude of the people making this 'drink driving' argument when they refuse to acknowledge scale and proportion.
d) is this..
Laws regarding vehicles are less of a concern as they don't really infringe upon democratic and legal processes. If people disagree with a driving restriction they are still free to challenge it. In a court, or even democratically. For example, you could form a political party with the aim of changing such a law.
However, when people's freedom of movement, freedom of assembly and freedom to meet other people is restricted then that potentially halts democracy.*
I can't vote a government out, or form a political party with like-minded people, if I'm under house arrest (!)
So such infringements are much more worrisome and serious. For they can inhibit correction mechanisms and accountability.
(Obviously having to wear a mask isn't as serious as restrictions on movement and human interaction in this regard, though if you were being pedantic I guess you could say it restricts communication. Either way though, all these corona impositions have came as part of the same general package. Advocated by the same general people.)
The disingenuous attitude bit
As for the disingenuous attitude I think this is something that really needs addressing, as it highlights precisely why people of a more libertarian mindset are so concerned with such infringements in the first place.
Normally most people, even the vast majority of libertarians, will acknowledge the value of having some minor restrictions on freedom. The prohibition on drink-driving being a very good example of a measure that almost everyone would support.
However, freedom-loving people often wince at allowing such concessions as they fear (rightly as current events prove) that it's a slippery slope, and that once you allow the sacred mantra of live and let live to be breached, freedom suddenly starts draining from the barrel at an alarming rate.
Advocates of such infringements into our liberties will start by saying;
"Don't worry, this is just a small infringement, where the dangers are very great. We promise we will never, ever make greater infringements into your rights!"
So most libertarians, not being totally fanatical, concede and compromise;
"Okay, the dangers are very great, I'll accept this infringement, I guess it makes sense ..as long as it doesn't go any further though, tut, tut."
But then the inch becomes a mile, and this concession gets flipped and used as an argument against any libertarian trying to hold back the tides of ever more infringements. With the label of hypocrisy then applied to really push home the argument. So the attitude suddenly changes;
"What? You think it's wrong to mandate mask wearing, but you accept laws restricting drink-driving?!! How hypocritical!"
All scale and proportion is ignored and brushed aside. With the one concession then used as an excuse for endless other intrusions. Which the libertarian, who's now abandoned true, unadulterated libertarianism, struggles to argue against without looking like they have double standards.
It's all quite unfair..
In fact, if we return to the beginning of the post, what spurred me on to debate the person I was arguing with was my annoyance at how unfairly they were treating other people who were raising concerns about civil liberties. (I just kind of joined in uninvited as usual xD). The people being criticised were people that had supported and tolerated many of the restrictions we've had placed upon us, and were only now after six months beginning to express their very genuine concerns.
They'd been perfectly reasonable and tolerant, and likewise their worries about overreach were perfectly normal worries that many people that value freedom would have. Yet they were being chastised as heartless and murderous just for voicing their dissent.
Of course, when you remove all sense of proportion (and silence or chill criticism) then basically any abuse of basic rights and freedoms becomes justified in the quest for public safety and 'the greater good'. So when people refuse to acknowledge that they're essentially advocating the suspension of all freedoms by equating every infringement with a very minor one that most people would accept then it becomes impossible to get the balance right. Or to even have a discussion about where that balance should be, and what safeguards should be in place.
So, finally, even though people are entitled to advocate further intrusions into our rights, it's unfair and dishonest to simply pretend that that's not happening. And to act like these intrusions are no different to other intrusions we already accept.
None of us are libertarians in the truest, most extreme sense of the word, but most of us (I would hope) do love liberty, and we need to keep reminding ourselves of that.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
*I've just read back the 'We Need Drunk-Rollerskating Laws' post and I basically make this exact same point in the article lol, so adding a (d) was pointless. Teach me to read things back properly in future 😅 Still I guess there's no harm in making these points twice.
No comments:
Post a Comment