The principle of liberalism is that there should be no restriction on the freedoms of the individual except to realise a greater benefit for others (and, sometimes, the individual themselves). Society (or its tool the State) should do no harm to individuals unless to create a net benefit for the members of society (it shouldn’t sell kids junk food to make a profit for example). Basically, the aim should be to restrict freedom as little as possible to realise the greatest happiness for members of society.
So National’s Step-Dad State has got it right in moving to ban use of cellphones while driving. Like banning driving while drunk it imposes a relatively restriction on people to prevent major costs. The huge costs to the State of dealing with the aftermath of crashes. Plus the pain and suffering of those injured in crashes and their families. Small cost, big benefit – justified.
To head off the moans. Using a cellphone is as impairing as being drunk when driving. That’s what the studies say. If you’ve ever tried them, you know it’s true.
It’s kind of funny watching the righties reaction to this. Joyce is their hero. Key too. Here they are acting like Helen and co. What a dilemma. Blindly support their idols or reflexively oppose any government regulation? Political philosophy is hard.
What will Act do? Once they were libertarian. Now half their MPs are fascists. Nah. They won’t support banning something they do themselves. They’re only into banning things that poor people do.