<-"Distractions" or "I Did Not See That Coming!" |Main|Great News and a New Poll->

Are You Fucking Serious?

February 8, 2007 1:20 AM

s a general rule, I hate having the government tell me what I can and cannot do. In an ideal world, I think that a consenting adult, or a group of consenting adults, should be able to do anything as long as there are no direct negative consequences to anyone outside the consenting adult or group of adults.

Regardless of what idealogy this idea is normally associated with, I'm not antiregulation per se; to the contrary, I think most laws are good, even where they violate the principle I've just laid out. In certain instances, the right of the group to safety and security outweighs the right of the individual to do as he will. However, I believe very strongly that the government should only infringe on the individual's freedom when there is a compelling reason to do so and, even then, it should do so in the least obtrusive way possible.

This train of thought leads me to support the legalization of most, if not all, drugs. If I want to wake up in the morning and snoke coke while shooting up heroin, I should be able to, as long as I'm not neglecting my children or robbing from people to get drug money. And, of course, I think that all currently illegal substances, should they become legal, should be subject to even more stringent regulations than are currently in place for tobacco and alcohol.

As I've mentioned before, these beliefs lead me to strongly reject any regulations that attempt to save me from myself or my own stupidity. In short, I thought the trans fat ban in New York City was going too far. Imagine, then, how I felt when I saw this article while looking around over at Althouse's blog.

Let me summarize the article. Some idiotic state senator named Carl Kruger has proposed that New York City enact a ban on using cell phones and iPods while walking. Read that sentence again. Once more. Yeah, he wants to make it illegal to listen to your fucking iPod while walking to work in the morning! Listening to my iPod while I walk to and from class is 90 percent of why I want my iPod.

Look, outlawing talking on your cell phone while driving is one thing. Numerous studies have shown that talking while driving actually inhibits your driving ability at least as much as being drunk. So, outlawing talking on your cell phone while driving makes perfect sense. But outlawing talking while walking? Really?

And as ridiculous as that is, how the hell do you justify outlawing listening to music while walking? That's just--that's just lunacy!!! There are three exclamation points at the end of that last sentence--that's how fucking bat-shit crazy this idea is. How did this thing even make it to the light of day? This kind of proposal can only be the result of some sort of perfect storm of stupidity.

And I just have to repeat the sentiments of the first commenter on Althouse's post: the impetus for this law was apparently the recent death of two iPod-listening pedestrians. As the commenter pointed out, two deaths in a city of 9 million people is hardly a public-safety emergency. I bet that, in the same period, more people died of pigeon-related causes. But where's all the antipigeon legislation?

My point is simple. I'm happy to cede a certain amount of my freedom for the security that comes with living in a civilized society. In other words, I'm willing to trade my ability to kill you for the knowledge that you won't kill me. But nowhere in that social contract is there a provision requiring, or even allowing, the government to keep me from hurting myself. So, I'm going to keep on listening to my iPod and eating French fries while I walk to school in the morning. And you can kiss my ass, Mr. Kruger.



9 Comments


jbob said:

"I'm willing to trade my ability to kill you for the knowledge that you won't kill me"

Most generous of you. Makes working with you more reassuring.

February 8, 2007 6:33 AM



TheExpat said:

Did you know that in Taiwan you can drink on the street? I have probably mentioned this before, but be that the case, it still warrants a second, hell even a third go. Drinking in public!

That said, I agree with your principle in the 1st paragraph. But later, you mention that you think that most laws are good, even when they violate your rule. I disagree, and I don't think that your statement about the rights of the many outweighing the few in any way creates a situation outside your initial principal. When you say "consenting" and "no consequences" outside the group, you've said enough. Therefore, I can't see how you really believe that laws infringing on externally harmless activity are really good.

Here, I'll try to explain (forgive my ignorance of law): That I won't kill you because you won't kill me is all good and well, but if I if for some reason I consent for you to kill me (terminal illness comes to mind), I think that this should also be fine. But, until I have consented, you are by law (and hopefully some personal code) bound not to do me in. The problem comes when the government steps in and impedes my right to be offed whenever and however I choose, provided no one else is physically hurt or mentally destroyed in the doing. The same goes for trans fats, drugs, homosexual activities (sex, marriage, etc.) and free association with whomever I choose. It should be up to my own common sense whether or not I engage in these activities.

February 8, 2007 7:47 AM



Santi said:

It seems that by Kruger's logic, someone who's deaf should never be allowed to cross the street. Yay for him!

February 8, 2007 11:03 AM



Vice said:

I disagree. I think we ought to acknowledge how dangerous Ipods can be while walking in public, and get rid of the Ipod menace. When you're walking and listening to music, you're not paying attention to your surroundings. Therefore, you're roughly 12x more likely to get hit by a vehicle and killed, all because you thought it necessary to listen to music when you should have been watching where you were going. If people can't take care of themselves, the government has to step in. Thus we should ban listening to cds in cars, because when listening to music in the car, the vast majority of people aren't watching the road. They're rocking out to Devo. By the same token, no one on the sidewalks should be allowed to speak. Because when you're crossing the street and you hear a voice and turn around, BAM! Bus crash, all up in your grill. Statistically, this has been shown to happen 35% of the time, with a margin of error of 85%. Also, women should not be allowed to wear low cut tops outside, because men are apt to lose focus and walk into open sewer grates and die. Hmm...perhaps we should just ban going outside altogether. That way, no one will ever get injured due to their own negligence. We'll just get fat and lazy and need cranes to airlift us from room to room. But then, of course, the crane operators might get distracted and accidentally drop our jumbotron asses on the floor, and we'll just lay there until we die from starvation. Gosh, legislating is hard work...

February 8, 2007 11:58 AM



Dangerous Mind said:

I saw that last night on Fox News (I was just flipping past - I swear!), and was just as stymied as you are. I get Vice's point about how distracting it can be - I mean, Devo makes me lose all sense of time and place, myself - but walking to school with my iPod blasting music doesn't make me unable to, I don't know, open my eyes and see (a) oncoming traffic, or (b) the "not a good time to cross" sign.

If they outlaw walking and iPoding or talking on phones, why not just outlaw talking or listening to music while driving? Honestly, I think people are much less likely to pay attention to their surroundings in their car while changing radio stations/CDs or talking to passengers - I know I'm not at 100% attention at that time. Maybe the real problem in NYC is that the cabbies are too busy doing other things and it's just coincidence that they hit two people walking with iPods. I'd like to see a stat of how many people in NYC are killed crossing streets every year by inattentive cab drivers.

February 8, 2007 6:30 PM



Dee said:

I agree with you Ismael, not only because of the "help me, help you" bullshit inherent in this kind of "legislation". but i also deeply resent any law that interferes with Darwinism at work. our gene pool will now be tainted with people whose hearts are too weak for a good ole burger and fries, and dumbasses who can't look both ways before crossing because they're so into trying to remember the dance steps in the video for the justin timberlake song they're listening to.

February 8, 2007 9:23 PM



Stella said:

There’s a sreect about your post. ICTYBTIHTKY

July 9, 2011 9:43 PM









Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.