Personal responsibility and the "nanny state"

I've never been a fan of laws that aim only to protect us from ourselves. I believe that in a free society, it is well within the bounds of government to provide incentives and disincentives which encourage "proper" behavior, but that it is beyond government's purview to explicitly ban specific behaviors (some obvious exceptions--like rape and murder--can of course be made here, but bear with me).

Unfortunately, it seems that more laws than ever are being proposed and passed that ban one action (or product) or another, thus removing the element of personal choice from the equation. For an example, witness Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's recent statements regarding cell phone use in cars.

LaHood said using a cell phone while driving is so dangerous that devices may soon be installed in cars to forcibly stop drivers — and potentially anyone else in the vehicle — from using them.

“There’s a lot of technology out there now that can disable phones and we’re looking at that,” said LaHood on MSNBC. LaHood said the cellphone scramblers were one way, and also stressed the importance of “personal responsibility.”...

“I think it will be done,” said LaHood. “I think the technology is there and I think you’re going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones. We need to do a lot more if were going to save lives.”...

“Am I on a rampage,” said LaHood, who has made distracted driving a top priority of his tenure, in February 2010. “Yes, I am, and why shouldn’t I be?”

Well, Ray, you shouldn't be because it's frankly un-American. As unpalatable as it may be sometimes, our nation is built on giving people the freedom to make their own choices, and allowing them to determine on their own what works and what doesn't. I certainly recognize the extreme danger of using cell phones (whether to talk or to text) while driving, but as usual, I'm more concerned with the principle than the specifics.

Secretary LaHood himself recognized the need for "personal responsibility", which has been in a precipitous decline over the past several decades. You don't create personal responsibility by legislating choices away from the people; quite the opposite, in fact. The more people rely on the government to save them from themselves, the less incentive they will have to make the right choices in the first place (or to deal with any developing problems on their own). Over-reliance on the government has been a key factor behind the disappearance of personal responsibility in America. 

Often, these types of policies and bans are quick-fix responses to avoid taking on more complicated issues. The fact is, distracted drivers existed on the road long before cell phones were prevalent, and they'll exist even if we do ban cell phones in cars entirely. We need to focus on the real problem--irresponsible, unqualified drivers--rather than their symptom, cell phone usage.

So, how do we do that? Simple. Severely punish drivers who are found to have caused accidents because they were distracted (by their cell phones or otherwise). One model that could be considered is Germany's drinking laws--the legal drinking age in Germany is 16 (for beer; 18 for hard liquor), but public drunkenness (not to mention drunk driving) is punished very harshly. In other words, we trust you to make the right decision, but come down hard when you do not. THOSE are policies that encourage personal responsibility; raising the drinking age to 30 or simply banning alcohol altogether would do the opposite. It's not often that we look to Europe for examples of how to govern, but Germany certainly has a citizenry that is responsible (almost obsessively so). 

If we are to return to the era of responsibility and self-reliance that once made America great, it must start with the way we legislate and punish undesirable behaviors. Ban very little, but punish irresponsible behavior severely. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the results.

[The Daily Caller]