It’s easy to condemn Whitefish’s ban on drivers using handheld cell phones as just another example of the “nanny state” gone wild. After all, we’re told she’s everywhere these days: telling us what to eat, where to smoke and who to insure. But was the council’s vote a real act of so-called protectionism?
I saw one comment in response to the vote that read, “Wake up people, the government is taking away your freedom and making criminals of all of you.” Another compared the Whitefish rule makers to Nazis. That’s more than a little extreme.
One of the most appealing characteristics of Montana is its residents’ libertarian bent. Most of us are averse to laws passed for our own good. Any sort of mandate is often unpopular. And the state famously even did away with speed limits for a stretch.
Moreover, Whitefish invites its share of criticism. The city can overregulate, like when it ordered a local ice cream shop to paint over its mural, saying the business was violating the sign ordinance; a judge overturned the decision. There’s also the issue of the interlocal agreement, a situation that is completely undemocratic, where those living outside the city are affected by its rules but don’t get to vote for representation.
But talking with a cell phone held to your ear while steering with the other isn’t solely an individual right, not when it affects other people.
I’m as guilty as anyone of using my phone behind the wheel: making calls, texting, checking game scores. And the fact is: it’s distracting. Billings has already passed a similar ban to Whitefish. So has Butte. Missoula bars texting while driving.
Limits on cell phone use are akin to others that increase the chances of a driver colliding with someone else, so the argument that doing so is a God-given right rings hollow. When you cause an accident that injures someone else or damages his or her property because you’re distracted, it is no longer an individual freedom.
That’s not to say, at least according to one recent study, that Montana can’t increase its residents’ liberties. An analysis released earlier this month by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, “Freedom in the 50 States,” found this state ranked a mediocre 29th among states in its “overall freedom ranking.” But not for the reasons you might think. The authors wrote:
Montana has a reputation for being a relatively free place. However, this reputation is not generally justified. Alcohol distribution is highly state controlled at both the wholesale and retail levels. Marijuana sentencing is extremely harsh. Health-insurance coverage mandates are somewhat excessive, including mandatory direct access to specialists. Occupational licensing is much more prevalent than average. Asset-forfeiture abuse is rampant, and eminent-domain reform has been anemic. Arrests for victimless crimes other than drugs are high. Cigarette taxes are rather high, and the state has universal smoking bans. Corporate PAC contributions to candidates and parties are prohibited.
It goes on to praise the state for low taxes, good gun laws, little regulation for private and home schools and having few planning rules. New Hampshire and South Dakota rank highest on the list. New York ranks last.
Ranking freedom, of course, is a subjective exercise. The authors acknowledge that they didn’t take into account politically charged issues such as abortion and the death penalty. But they did succeed in pointing out limitations on freedoms in this state that are far more relevant than cell phone use.