AP Photo by Steven Senne
Earlier this week, Governor Chet Culver signed an expansionary “nanny state” prohibition of texting while driving a vehicle. The prohibition goes into effect July, 1, 2010 with fines being enforced a year from that date. This law is evidence of government’s belief in the fallacy it can and should regulate human behavior.
Texting is dangerous, causes distractions while driving, and prevents drivers from paying attention to safely traveling from one place to another. However, a multitude of other distractions are also dangerous and just as likely to cause accidents. Individuals understand if they cause damage to someone else, they will be punished and serve justice for their crime. Do we not already have laws and statues on the books in Iowa where this type of negligence is punished to prevent individuals from engaging in risky behaviors? Shouldn’t the law punish those who actually cause or inflict harm on others instead of prohibiting what people might do?
Few have discussed the unseen effects the prohibition will have on the behavior of motorists. Given the history of prohibition in this country (i.e. 18th Amendment), the lack of attention or analysis of the unintended consequences law will manifest is astounding. Evidently, the legislature is a bit ignorant to believe any ban will stop people from using their phones while they drive. Here’s a news flash for the Iowa Legislature: people will still text while they drive.
Humans are independent actors born with free will. By the state declaring “thou shall not text” does not mean people will not have the desire and need to text. Thus, the ban will not diminish the impulse to do what free minds wish to do. Undoubtedly, the law may even cause more distraction and possible harm to potential motorists when individuals hide or disguise their texting while driving to avoid whatever penalties the law prescribes.
This law will no doubt be an intrusion of Iowan’s individual liberty and have a multitude of unseen effects. No doubt, more people will likely be harmed by the prohibition on texting than helped. Humans are fallible being driven by free will to do as they please. They do not want a nanny state government to pass laws to keep them safe from themselves. Should the state also prohibit drivers from using makeup, eating, talking, or navigating via GPS or maps while driving? Of course, it should not.
Prohibitions never work and these laws always reveal unintended consequences. Individual citizens voluntarily consent to form governments (local or federal) to keep us free so we can retain our liberty instead of writing laws to keep us safe ourselves. Maybe the state should focus more on closing the budget gap and freezing spending instead of trying to regulate people’s lives.
Comments