Why small laws = big totalitarianism

Below is an excerpt from Ivo Vegter’s article at the Maverick on the slow and creeping fascism embedded in petty safety laws.  Read the article in full here.  We can already see this playing out in all its debauched splendour in the United Kingdom, most of Europe, Australia and the United States.

It is already happening in South Africa as bored politicians try find things to do by hyper-regulating our lives.  As Ivo points out, it is not hard to inadvertently break the law these days given the sheer preponderance of gunk on our statute books.

Indeed this also goes to the heart of nationalised healthcare and what it really means.  State healthcare doesn’t, as many believe, mean care for the poor, good quality services, and healthcare justice.  It means nothing short of the nationalisation of our bodies and the total control of the state on private lifestyle choices.  It is the very essence of totalitarianism.

Mark Steyn has a lot to say on the topic here, here, and here.

Enjoy.

Away with fascist seat belt laws

Ivo Vegter
The Daily Maverick

The laws about seat belts and motorcycle helmets should trouble you. They’re a direct infringement on your liberty by an overweening nanny state.

There are 2055 potential charges under South Africa’s traffic legislation. This is no joke. It means that almost everyone, at some stage, will break the law – usually without even knowing it.

Granted, many of the regulations are justified, despite the mind-numbing complexity of the law. They are designed not only to ensure orderly traffic flow, but also to ensure the safety of other road users.

Some, however, have nothing to do with the safety of others. Take seat belts. What business does the government have to force people to wear them, and to punish them when they do not?

The law exists to protect your life, limb and property from unjust infringement by others. It does not exist to tell you how to live your life. If you want to drive without a seat belt, you should be perfectly free to do so.

Of course, it would be sensible to wear a seat belt anyway. Anecdotal stories about people injured or killed by their seat belt do not wash. Statistically, if you wear your seat belt in an accident you will have a significantly better chance of survival, and considerably less serious injuries when you do survive.

But that’s not the government’s business. If you don’t wear a seat belt, the only person you’re likely to harm is yourself. You’re not putting anyone else’s life, limb or property at risk. It’s your problem.

An argument could be made for a law that requires children to be buckled up, because they are unable to make informed choices for themselves. In this case, the government is acting to protect them from their parents’ stupidity or carelessness. Fair enough. But once you’re old enough to drive, you’re old enough to make your own decisions about your own safety.

A similar argument goes for motorcycle helmets. If you want to be an idiot and ride without one, be my guest. Just don’t come crying to me if you come off your bike and smash your skull. Doing so does not harm me, nor anyone else. Your risk-taking is your problem.

So why does the government intrude so on our private decisions about our own lives and safety?

The only plausible reason is that you’re likely to cost the state – and consequently your fellow taxpayers – more if you’re more seriously injured because of your own stupidity. The cost of emergency services are not the problem. That cost is incurred anyway. It’s the subsequent medical bills that the government has a problem with. The additional treatment that you’ll need will cost more, and it will at least in part be subsidised by the state.

The solution to this problem is not to compel you to live your life with minimum risk. It is to abolish socialised healthcare.

read more…