From Dr. Gridlock at The Washington Post online, I learned of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's latest measure to control all movement of citizens in the United States (emphasis added):
The U.S. Department of Transportation says it is partnering with thousands of law enforcement agencies for a holiday crackdown on drunk driving.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood kicked off the effort Monday in Washington. Many states are adapting a "no refusal strategy" to fight drunk driving, where police obtain warrants from on-call judges for blood samples from suspected drunk drivers who refuse breathalyzer tests.
"Drunk driving remains a leading cause of death and injury on our roadways," LaHood said in a statement announcing the "Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest" campaign. "I applaud the efforts of the law enforcement officials who have pioneered the 'no refusal' approach to get drunk drivers off our roads. And I urge other states to adopt this approach to make sure that drunk drivers can't skirt the law and are held accountable."
Let's be clear here. "Suspected drunk drivers" means anything that the police want it to mean. As long as you drive a vehicle, you are a suspected drunk driver while driving. For instance, if you approach a sobriety checkpoint and turn around to avoid it, you are a suspected drunk driver. If you are stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and do not answer questions from police satisfactorily or choose to not answer questions as is your right, you are a suspected drunk driver. If the police ask to search your car and you refuse, which is your right, you are a suspected drunk driver. If the police just do not like you (you are a black male, for instance), you are a suspected drunk driver. As a suspected drunk driver, you will be compelled to take a breathalyzer and if you refuse that, the police will contact an on-call judge who will rubber stamp a warrant to take your blood. And if you refuse to submit to these violations of your rights, you will be arrested and probably tasered or even killed.
The anti-drunk-driving proponents will say that such checkpoints are necessary because, they argue, drunk driving is so dangerous that we just must give up our freedoms to be safe. Would you like to know what else is dangerous? The police. Especially for black men like me. I would much rather deal with the risk of being in an accident caused by a drunk driver than risk direct contact with police officers. I'm pretty sure that my chances of being harmed by a drunk driver are far lower than being harmed by police. But this is one of problems with socialized roads. Risks assessment on roads are determined through the political process. We as individuals cannot choose which risks we would rather take. I do not get to choose what risks are acceptable to me. I would much rather drive on a road that might have more drunk drivers, but fewer police. I'm pretty sure that my chances of getting home unharmed would be better in this case rather than drive on roads that are swarming with cops.
Instead, the group with the best fearmongering arguments wins. The "drunk driving" hobgoblin is effective because the remnants of the prohibition movement are alive and well in the U.S., only now they call themselves MADD and SADD. They have effectively demonized the "drunk driver" as an unspeakably evil person. The people in this country will accept just about any violation of their rights just to be protected from a person with an arbitrarily high blood alcohol count. On the other hand, the police in this country beat up black men like a Whack-a-Mole game at Chucky Cheese and no one other than libertarians cares. Because these police are also beating up white people and Latino people and Asian people and old people and disabled people and kids, black men cannot claim "discrimination" and get political support. As long as police appear to equal opportunity violators of rights, there is no public outrage to fight them.
There are actions the government could take to reduce drunk driving if it really wanted to, however. Governments could end all taxi licenses and regulations so that anyone who wanted to enter the cab business could do so. This would increase the supply of cabs and lower their fares so that people who would like to drink and might drink too much will have an incentive to take a cab before they go out to drink. Governments could stop arresting people without taxi licenses who provide courtesy taxi service. Governments could end laws that prohibit people from pulling off on the shoulder to sleep. Governments could end zoning laws and allow communities to mix business and residential developments. This could lead to more local pubs and bars so that people who want to socialize and drink do not have to drive. Governments could end the outrageous minimum drinking age laws so that parents could actually parent and teach their children how to consume alcohol responsibly. Governments could end these checkpoints that discourage people from becoming designated drivers. What sane person would want to deal with a sobriety checkpoint with a car full of drunks? Governments could privatize all roads and road owners could figure out how to deal with drunk driving. Given that no road owner would want the reputation of having dangerous roads, he has an incentive to minimize accidents. If governments own the roads, however, governments have no incentive to minimize accidents because it cannot lose any money when they occur. Moreover, governments can demand more money when more accidents happen. This is because the masses are so frightened that they demand the governments to "do something". Governments naturally then demand more money and power so that they can "do something".
Dr. Gridlock references a local alcohol program that pays for free taxi rides, but there are restrictions:
The Washington Regional Alcohol Program will also kick off its holiday free ride program this week. From Friday to Jan. 1 people can request free taxi rides (with a $30 limit) by calling 1-800-200-TAXI from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. weekly. You have to be 21 or older to use the service.
If saving lives is so important, why have a $30 limit? Why limit the age for the service? Just because the drinking age is 21 does not mean that no one under 21 would drink and drive. Why not make this service available to anyone who thinks he has consumed too much alcohol if the true goal is to save lives because drunk driving is so dangerous?
So governments could take measures that would lower drunk driving if they really wanted to do so. But there are at least two reasons why no government would take these suggestions. One reason is that a goal of all governments is to control its subjects. Democratic governments are probably the worst in this regard because any tyrant who wants to control the habits of his fellow citizens can influence the government, be elected to a public office, or work as a bureaucrat. A transportation fascist like LaHood is not about to relent his control over our freedom of movement. He is already happy with the TSA and has expanded his tyranny to bus stations and train stations. I bet Janet Napolitano also backs the "no refusal strategy." People such as LaHood and Napolitano are utterly corrupted by the power they have and will not stop their encroachments on our dwindling reserve of freedoms.
The second reason no government would implement any of these suggestions is that governments use checkpoints to continue their robbery of their subjects. Each city, county, and State has a plethora of ridiculous traffic laws and checkpoints allow police to cite drivers for violating these laws. A driver can be cited for not having proof of insurance, driving without a license, having busted or broken taillights or headlights, having windows that are tinted too darkly, and the list goes on and on. None of these traffic laws are designed to protect drivers. They are there to extract wealth from drivers and to remind its subjects that the government is the true owner of the drivers' vehicles because it is the government who has the ultimate say on the drivers' property. No government would give up such a cash cow just to save some lives.
Governments create these laws and checkpoints in the name of safety, but governments are notoriously inefficient at protecting its citizens from danger. The main reason for this is that governments are criminal institutions and, thus, it makes no sense to expect them to protect its subjects. Even if governments were not criminal institutions, however, its monopoly on protective services necessarily means that the quality of protection will fall and price or protection will rise. But because governments have a monopoly on violence, they can attempt to protect people using the only tool it has: violence. Thus, through checkpoints, governments declare everyone a drunk driver and puts the burden on the driver to prove his innocence. Those who dare to resist being treated like a criminal will learn the hard way. In this way, governments declare that they will protect us, but their "protection" might cost us our lives.
Bravo, I couldn't agree more.
We got rid of all our cars and all the attendant expenses, controls, and and stress that go along with car ownership and driving.
F* You government.
signed,
Americans who have opted out of your crappy system.
P.S. And we smoke RYO tobacco too.(no cigarette tax from me)
He he, you lose.
Posted by: Marissa | December 14, 2010 at 04:02 PM