Safety



When I was a child of 8 or 9, my brother would regularly give me money to go to Leo's Market for his fix of a bottle of Pepsi and a bag of Paul's Potato Chips.  My price for the trip was ten cents.  I would walk across the street, behind my friend's house and down the alley toward Leo's.  On the way I would occasionally be greeted at one of the fence lines by a neighbor.  I can't remember his name but he was probably in his 50's at the time and would ask me to get him a pack of Lucky Strikes at the store.  My price was ten cents.

I would walk into Leo's Market, get the Pepsi and chips and a sleeve of Rain-Blo Bubble Gum.  At the counter I would ask Leo or the lady who worked  for Leo for a pack of Lucky Strikes.  I paid and headed back down the alley where I delivered the Lucky Strikes and the change to the fellow in the white t-shirt who was puttering around in his yard.  We would chat and I would head home.

Today that exchange would might make the news.  Maybe not because I would be allowed to buy the Lucky Strikes.  But the nice neighbor would be out of luck, I would be out of ten cents and the world would be a little safer??

We have gone to great lengths in the name of safety.  Seat belt laws, smoking regulation, increased drinking ages. 

My daughter recently "rolled through" (she didn't come to a complete stop) a stop sign and was cited.  Because she is not yet 17 she had the pleasure of sitting in a courtroom watching individuals who rear-ended other vehicles receive 28 day license suspensions while she received a mandatory six-month suspension due to a new law.  The magistrate didn't like the law - he said so.  But his hands were tied.  It is a stupid law in my opinion but it was passed to make things safer.

Today our highways are so clogged with signs for everything that we miss real dangers.  Our coffee cups have "hot" warnings on them so we don't burn ourselves.  We want to pass soda pop taxes under the guise of protection.  We discuss regulating what people eat.  Are we safer?  Are our streets and neighborhoods better off since we have piled up thousands of new "offenses" to be prosecuted?  I don't believe so.

Maybe.  Just maybe, we have harmed the rule of law by criminalizing so many things in society.

This brilliant post from Michael Wade reminded me of the false quest for safety and its consequences.
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments

  • 11/6/2009 11:19 AM Tyler wrote:
    Agree with you Mr. Harden, and with Mr. Wade's post as well.  Both are great enjoyable readings.  Hearing how things used to be and seeing how things are becoming more and more tight, makes me wonder how tight the future will be!
    Reply to this
    1. 11/6/2009 2:17 PM Cultural Offering wrote:
      I would predict that the future will be uptight but not alright, Tyler.  I hope you are studying hard.  We miss seeing you at the kitchen table. 
      Reply to this
  • 11/6/2009 11:51 AM David wrote:
    In law, "prior restraint" refers to censorship by government.  But the same principle applies whenever a law criminalizes behavior that isn't inherently harmful or dangerous, but might make harmful or dangerous behavior convenient.  "Zero tolerance" rules are the most egregious example, but all such laws and regulations diminish our liberty.

    They think they own us. The big question is whether we'll reach a tipping point where we stand up for ourselves, or whether they'll chip away at our citizenship so incrementally that we'll allow it to happen.  If Western Europe and Canada are any indication, it'll be the latter.

    I agree with Charlie Daniels. What this world needs is a few more rednecks. We stand up for ourselves, and we know what a seine is.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.