The Tree of Liberty

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
― Thomas Jefferson

That's a good quote.  I'd shorten it slightly. 

Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with blood.    
-- The Rat

I say that because we have become such a risk averse nation that we consistently trample on Liberty in order to avoid injury.  Here in British Columbia our Liberal overlords, Premier Green Jeans and Premier Mom, have each enacted legislation that severely limits our Liberty in pursuit of a risk-free world.  Examples of that legislation are:

• Drunk Driving legislation reducing the threshold for penalties from .08 to .05.
• Speeding laws that allow the confiscation of vehicles for speeding 40km over the limit
• Body armour restrictions
• The newer motorcycle helmet laws

I could go on but I hope you see my point.  When our government starts to infringe on our rights as citizens in order to protect us from ourselves we are on a very slippery slope.  Absurdly, the drunk driving legislation  has been declared unconstitutional if you are over .08 as your right to a trial BEFORE punishment for a criminal offence has been breached.  However, if you are between .05 and .08 those same roadside punishments are apparently perfectly OK.

Obviously there are those who can justify these laws.  Alexa's law, as the drunk driving law is called, is an example of some truly misguided thinking.  The idea that people with blood alcohol between ,05 and .08 are the problem is absurd.  It is the heavy drinking, alcoholic types who consistently drive well above the .08 level that are the threat, even after we take away their drivers licence.  Yet, deaths in BC are down!  Yay!  Right?  Well, no, not to me.  Deaths are down because people, average people who might have drunk too much, again well past .08, are choosing not to drink at all for fear of running foul of this law.  But so what?  We know from many examples that when you enact draconian laws with no right of appeal you will change people's behaviour.  That doesn't make it right.

Worse, though, are laws that force individuals to take steps to protect themselves.  Helmet laws are just that.  What business is it of government's whether I engage in risky behaviour or not?  The rationale is always "because we all pay your medical bills".  But what kind of argument is that?  Can I opt out of socialized medicine?  Will we restrict all other risky activities?  We've already heard many academics argue for banning things like trans-fats, sugary snacks, and even sugar itself.  We have people who argue that some groups' sexual activities are risky.  So where is the line?  It keeps getting pushed a little further with each government.

I am quite serious when I say that Liberty must be watered with blood.  Sure, it may be the blood of idiots who would rather not wear a helmet, or even the blood of innocents killed by speeders.  There is risk in life but when we legislate to reduce risk we may save some lives but the cost in freedom is going to be very high.