OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Exactly the Wrong Thing

Entry 2248, on 2022-11-15 at 12:31:02 (Rating 3, Politics)

One of my favourite quotes from Mark Twain is this: "censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

While this quote specifically mentions censorship - which I'm sure my readers will know is a favourite topic of mine - I think this can go a lot further, because it applies to other forms of restriction that authorities, at all levels, might want to impose on us.

I was recently asked about my attitude to guns, which I think is relevant here. And there are a few lesser issues currently being discussed as well: the sale of fireworks, the plans for reduced speed limits on our roads, and the availability of alcohol.

I don't own any firearms and have no need for any, I don't really have much interest in fireworks, but I drive enough to find petty enforcement of speed limits annoying, and alcohol is important to me, not because I'm an alcoholic, but I do enjoy wine and beer and think of those as a sort of hobby. Have a look at the wine and beer section of my web site to see my notes on these.

In fact, it's a deeper, philosophical objection I have to these restrictions, rather than just personal inconvenience. I object in principle to government control in most forms. I fully understand that there will always be a need for restrictions, but I would like to see these minimised, rather than having even more added.

A very common sentiment related to this is: "one percent of people spoil it for the other 99%". In other words, the tiny number of people who abuse guns, or fireworks, or their right to drive on our roads, or alcohol make it necessary to impose restrictions which affect the other 99% adversely. (BTW, in the case of lawyers, or another profession you dislike, the rule is: "it is just 99% of lawyers who give the other 1% a bad name!")

And yet, despite almost everyone agreeing with this idea, the people who make the rules ignore the principle and impose new rules on everyone. Why? Maybe because the people making the rules are stupid, lazy, and arrogant. I think "lazy" is particularly relevant here, because it should be possible to make rules which only restrict the "bad" 1% and don't affect the rest, but it's just so much easier making rules which restrict everyone's freedom.

And it is worse than that too, because often the people who the rule was designed to affect often actually aren't. For example, the New Zealand government's recent restriction on gun ownership confiscated many weapons from lawful and responsible owners, but it is unlikely for illegal owners and other criminals to have voluntarily given up theirs. So the law did exactly the wrong thing.

And this is a common trend I see at all levels of tyranny (OK, I admit that describing government, local politicians, and managers as tyrants is a bit hyperbolic, but that description has some validity, I think). A person in a position of authority (there's a more friendly description) might notice a problem associated with a small group or even a single person, and apply draconian rules to everyone as a result.

The gun confiscation scheme was (allegedly) created in response to the Christchurch shooting, where a single, deranged individual murdered 51 people using a combination of legal and illegal firearms. There were several situations where his plan could have been thwarted, but due to apathy and incompetence, nothing was done.

The New Zealand government is famously "woke", so this might be seen as a great opportunity for them to impose gun control laws which they would naturally be in favour of, with or without the shooting. The shooting has just made the whole scheme so much easier, because anyone who criticised it could be labelled as a supporter of terrorism.

And I think the shooting should be classified as an act of terror, because it had clear political motivations with the intent to cause harm to the Muslim community. So, of course we should be trying to stop terrorists, but how does that extend from stopping one crazy Australian to affecting so many rational and responsible New Zealand citizens who owned fully legal firearms?

Recently I was driving from one town to another and was stuck behind three large trucks which were slow on the hills. I came to a passing lane, but by then road was flat again and the trucks had increased their speed to almost the speed limit. I accelerated to above the limit to get past them safely, but then my radar detector sounded an alarm and I hit the brakes when I saw a cop on the side of the road, right in the middle of the passing lane. So I got past one truck but was now stuck in the middle of a line of three of them.

Later I went to overtake the two remaining trucks, where there was no passing lane, but had to pull back into the lane when some oncoming traffic appeared. That was far more dangerous than going a little bit over the speed limit on the passing lane. That cop had made driving more dangerous, not less. He had done exactly the wrong thing. And yes, I was very tempted to make a rude gesture as I drove past the scumbag, but I decided it might be best not to!

Why do we need speed limits? To make driving safer, and in many cases it works. But why use a law designed to make driving safer to make it more dangerous instead? It's just mindless adherence to rules which are designed to stop the 1% who really do drive dangerously but instead make driving worse for the responsible 99% (including me; and those of you who have driven with me please refrain from laughing when I say that, because it has been decades since I had an accident while driving).

I'm sure you can see the general pattern in my argument here, which also applies to the other two areas I mentioned above (fireworks and alcohol) as well as many others. In fact, the concept applies to every law, every bylaw, every rule, and every policy. They all can be stupid, counterproductive, and frivolous.

In the unlikely event I ever found myself in a position of power over others, and with the ability to create the rules myself, what would I do differently? Well, that's a very good question, because I accept it is easy to criticise the current rules, but it's a lot harder to create better ones. Of course, I would never have power over others because I simply don't want that. But I also don't want others to have power over me, and even if there is a need for some means of control, it should at least be minimised.

I think more education and testing would be helpful, and stronger penalties for people who genuinely engage in antisocial or dangerous behaviour, or in violence.

For example, register gun owners and check up on them occasionally. And if there is good reason to think a person has illegal guns or is likely to do something dangerous with legal weapons, do something about it.

Limit the sale of fireworks to people who are fairly responsible. Note that the science tells us that people under about 23 are not fully developed cognitively, so I think we should avoid giving them responsibility over anything!

Enforce speed limits, but don't take the laws so literally. I believe it is safer to overtake on a passing lane at 120 kph (the open road limit in NZ is 100) or even 140 than it is to slowly overtake while trying to keep to the speed limit. It's probably best I don't mention the speeds I often do when overtaking here, but let's just say I like to use the turbos!

And alcohol is a problem in New Zealand, although the social harm has been reducing consistently for years now. But instead of just pushing the price higher and limiting availability, why not create programs to help people overcome alcohol-related issues.

I know all of my suggestions might cost a bit more, but most governments throw money around like it's nothing - often on frivolous projects - so there is really no shortage.

And I know that having rules and policies which are more nuanced involves more work, but isn't that what our leaders get paid the big salaries for?

I think any progress in the general direction I have indicated in this post is welcome, because right now we are doing exactly the wrong thing!

Comment 1 (7339) by Anonymous on 2022-11-22 at 10:42:48:

You sound quite naive yourself in this post. Do you not think that the government has considered these options?

Comment 2 (7341) by OJB on 2022-11-22 at 22:44:07:

I think they might have considered some of my points, but as I said, they are too lazy and risk averse to actually try anything truly innovative.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.