Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)
Note: I originally wrote this in July 2013 for Hoosier Access.
See another blog post: Indiana's dangerous and irresponsible fireworks laws.
As a philosophical libertarian, I do not believe government should be protecting adults from themselves. So long as people are only harming themselves, government should generally not prohibit behaviors we see as "risky" or we personally dislike.
When government needs to step in is when the behavior of one person harms or unnecessarily endangers another person. That is why we have laws against drunk driving, because operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated endangers those around you and therefore violates their rights.
This is where our laws about fireworks come in. Matt Tully had a well-researched article last month about fireworks laws and the influence of fireworks industry lobbyists, and why the trajectory has been toward a more laissez-faire approach to fireworks laws.
The right of one person to set off fireworks should end when it endangers the lives or property of someone else. Specifically, allowing people to shoot explosives high into the air in a residential neighborhood is an invitation to disaster. All it would take is one rocket that does not explode in the air as it is supposed to and instead explodes after it lands on someone's roof to cause immense property damage and potentially cause serious injuries or even fatalities.
More to the point, the absolute right to set off fireworks around the Fourth of July and New year's Eve is absurd, especially in severe drought conditions like we had in the summer of 2012. We should trust local governments to know what is best for their communities and enforce local bans when appropriate, even around July Fourth. It is insane to not allow local governments to protect public safety in a situation like that. This should be repealed.
Let's not completely ruin everyone's fun. We all like to celebrate events like the Fourth of July. But we need to have common sense laws that protect public safety, as we do with drunk driving. The legislature should tighten the restrictions on what fireworks can be sold in Indiana, since making people promise to use them elsewhere is absurd.
The first place to start is with fireworks that launch high into the air, which should only be used by people with a license in a designated safe zone. That, and allowing local government to ban fireworks use when necessary, are two common-sense reforms that should be easily achievable.
Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.
- A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.
- This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.
- Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
- You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.
- Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.
Thank you for your cooperation.
, Mike Newton said...
"As a philosophical libertarian..."
Still clinging to that charade despite your rants against same-sex marriage and other forms of sex on "biblical" grounds, plus the laser focus on abortion? Absurd! You'd have us living in a right-wing theocracy if you could arrange it.
, Scott Tibbs said...
1. I've never said that same-sex "marriage" should be illegal. If a same-sex couple can find a "church" that wants to perform a "marriage" ceremony, and then live as a "married" couple, they should not be forbidden from doing so by the law. What I have said is that government should not recognize same-sex relationships with the legal status of "marriage."
2. Being a philosophical libertarian does not mean I am not allowed to have an opinion. One can find something immoral without calling for it to be illegal. I don't think people should smoke cigarettes either, but I don't want to ban tobacco. That's not inconsistent with libertarianism.
3. Libertarianism is not anarchism. Traditional libertarian philosophy is that "you can swing your fist until you hit my nose" - meaning you cannot harm someone else. Abortion harms someone else.