The Armchair Politician

Georgia, along with many other states in the nation, has reinvigorated its Click It or Ticket campaign (visit its laughable website). While watching TV recently, one of their new advertisement spots came on. I’ve been unable to find a video (however, if I’m lucky I’ll be able to make a recording). One part of the advertisement goes something like this: I finally was able to record the spot when it came on TV. A quote follows, and a picture taken from the advertisement is on the right.

…because 43,000 Americans were killed in traffic crashes just last year. And just over half of them died with safety belts unbuckled. Safety belts save lives. Five hundred police agencies are enforcing Georgia’s safety belt law on the highways where you drive. So if you don’t click it, expect a ticket. [emphasis theirs]

Most of my readers will know what I’m getting at immediately. If just over fifty percent weren’t, doesn’t that mean that just under fifty percent were wearing their safety belts? Think about it: that implies that a driver wearing his safety belt has only a slightly better odds of surviving. I’m no statistician, but isn’t that small a spread (it never states the exact figure, but “just over” is rather indicative) generally considered statistically insignificant? Hell, “just over” would probably be within the margin of error for most studies.

Now, I’m not going to dispute the claim that safety belts do in fact save lives. However, if the best the government can do to justify these laws is a study with such a marginal outcome, it really causes me to question the nature of them. I’ve long felt that it’s our right as humans to act in whatever self-destructive, idiotic ways we desire, as long as we’re not endagnering others. In no way does a person’s decision to ignore the use of a seat belt directly affect any other person’s life but their own; if they want to do it, by all counts they should be able to. Now, there’s very little reason not to wear your seat belt, but that’s irrelevant. We don’t need to be wasting city, state, and federal resources cracking down on human stupidity when they could be far better spent on more pressing matters, like fighting terrorism, chasing down rapists and murderers, and maintaining the profitability of local confectionary establishments, otherwise known as doughnut shops.

It is my opinion that this campaign is nothing more than an extension of the government’s ongoing attempt to establish its role in the minds of American people as their protector and mother figure. As our citizens become gradually used to the concept of the government looking out for their welfare, their safety, their “best interest”, then it will be far easier in the future for those in power to begin taking larger steps towards removing our freedoms. If all they have to do is claim that it’s for the “public good”, or being done with concern for the well-being of the American citizenry as a whole, then we as the public are malleable to the point of following our political leaders blindly. Think about all the claims of “terrorism” we’re experiencing today: economic “terrorists”, environmental “terrorists”, and so on. The overuse of the terminology, to explain every act anyone with an agenda feels undesirable, is being used as a catalyst to override rational thought. “Public safety” is being used in much the same vein, although for a far greater period of time, and with far more gradual effect.

This may make it even more dangerous in the long term than the overuse of “terrorism” as an excuse to justify anything. If the process is done gradually enough, it can slip by even the most libertarian-minded of individuals, evading the radar of freedom-loving people until it’s far too late. As an example, look at the massive support this campaign has received from the American public. Can anyone think of an effort by any branch of our government that is both as well-supported by the general populace as it is invasive and unjustified?