Unalienable Rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

That's what it says in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It goes on to say:

 That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…

Today at yet another red light camera hearing (in the House this time), I listened to the questions of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Corcoran, who made his argument solely from the safety standpoint. I also listened to the debate amongst the legislators. One comment from a legislator stuck out to me, it was words to the effect of the government is here mainly to protect our citizens.

In discussing the hearing with a friend of mine afterwards, he made the observation he thought the job of government was to follow the Constitution, since each legislator took an oath to support and defend both the Florida and U.S. Constitutions.

I got to thinking about this, and read the Declaration of Independence. I could see the legislator's point if it said "Life, Government Protection, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Here's the thing:

It doesn't say that.

Consider this: The legislature of Florida, your county or city commission, Congress, or any legislative body cannot protect you from every hazard that may come your way. Notably, self-inflicted ones. This fact has not stopped them from trying though. Look at the owner's manual from a new car & compare it to one from just 20 years ago. The truck we bought a couple of years ago had so many books it took a case to hold them. The truck has 12 airbags. I've written at length about government regulations and the cost of vehicles here, so I won't beat a dead horse. Suffice it to say tens of thousands of Americans were killed on the highways in the 60's, also in the 70's, and still to this date. We've seen a decrease in fatalities in Florida for the past two years. I really think this is due to the economy and high gas prices more than anything else. I know it is not due to red light cameras.

After the hearing today, I had a pleasant conversation and debate with the Colonel from one of the Sheriff's Departments that spoke in favor of the cameras (no sarcastic remarks like last time with the deputies from another agency). We shook hands and agreed to disagree. What I just cannot understand is how law enforcement personnel can support the undermining of our Constitution when they also took an oath to support and defend it. Ditto the lawyers in the legislature- what I speak of is from our supreme law. As a police officer, if I made an illegal search, generally ALL evidence was excluded. This law should be subject to the same treatment- if one part of it violates our constitution, ALL of it should be excluded. Politicians are quick to gloss over this argument though, since their concern is "safety."

One point I made at the hearing was that if we are to do away with the 5th (self-incrimination) and 6th (ability to confront witnesses) Amendments, why stop there? We can do away with the 4th as well. That way, everyone is subject to search in their persons, houses, papers, and effects anywhere at any time. Think of all of the guns, drugs, etc. we would take off the street and how "safe" we would be. I commented to the legislators that we had broken away from England in 1776 due to tyranny, and that when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty (a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but likely from John Barnhill circa 1914). I'll throw in another- get rid of the 1st Amendment and you'll never have to worry about reading anything I type that is critical of the government. Safety? Security?

These amendments came from people that had seen the effect of a lack of these protections. Like our parents wanting a better life for their kids, they wanted to ensure these transgressions by the government didn't take place in America as they had in England and in the colonies under English rule.

Another thing I discovered recently: Like us, Russia employs a justice system of innocent until proven guilty. It wasn't always so. This change took place in 1992 when their constitution added the declaration of rights and freedoms. From what I have read, under communist societies (such as the former Soviet Union), guilty until proven innocent is the norm. When the state no longer has to prove an individual broke the law, there is a significant shift in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. When no one from the state is in court to testify you (not your car) broke the law, it is up to you to either confess or "finger" someone else. This is how the camera, oops,  "Traffic Infraction Detector" law works here.

Here's the next thing:

Government via laws does not act all at once. It is an incremental process.

Right now, citizens supporting cameras often say, "Don't want a ticket? Don't run the light!" Great advice. Will they also say that once speed cameras make it to Florida? I suspect they will.

Let's keep moving on this continuum.

We've now mopped up red light runners and speeders. A big cause of crashes remains though- DUI (drunk/drugged driving). Now in the name of "safety" the government wants to add interlock devices to ALL cars- that way we can be sure no one will drive drunk. We can't let the fact there is no reasonable suspicion they may do so get in our way. Think of all of the lives saved. These same citizens, now indoctrinated by the cameras, will say "No problem- I don't drink & drive." Perhaps a smaller number though, as some will realize if they have a couple of drinks at dinner they may not be able to drive home. It looks like we missed the rear-end crashes though. Let's see… a camera won't stop those, nor will an interlock… The solution: we need smarter cars! We should mandate automatic brakes on ALL cars. While we're at it, let's mandate automatic steering as well- that way if you drift out of your lane, the car is smart enough to go back into the proper lane. I'll bet some future wizard can integrate automatic braking for red lights! Does automatic braking sound like science fiction?

BTW, that is from 2009. The automatic steering is lagging behind a little bit. I'll add a caveat here- I like cars (I should say one of my pursuits of happiness is to drive cars and ride motorcycles- that is why they were made), and I like technology. I don't like the government forcing things on me. If you want a car with automatic brakes and steering because either you are a limited capacity driver or the pace of life is such that you need to text/talk on your cell phone/eat a sandwich/etc. while driving, then you should be able to pay extra for it. Don't count on it staying optional, though:

From the text of the video:

With the possibility that some ADAS systems (such as Lane Departure Warning) will become mandatory in the next few years, it is even more important that products are able to conform to the new regulations quickly and affordably.

Guess what else is proposed? Cameras! Look at the last sentence:

Using bullet cameras on suction mounts, two cameras, complete with a (sic) gratical overlay, can point down each side of the vehicle to view the lane markings, with another pointing straight ahead, as shown in the screenshot. A final camera could be used to view the driver input in the cabin.

Driver input in the cabin? That's video of you driving the car.

Anyhow, life is now better! We've now taken care of red light runners, speeders, drunk and careless drivers thanks to technology. Come to think of it, we really don't need drivers anymore….

Life, LIBERTY, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Is it a failed concept? You can help decide this at the next election (2012). Research your candidates. Find one that will not compromise our rights in the name of safety. Vote them into office and let's try something different for a few years. You may like what you see.