David McElroy

I’ve seen a lot of unsafe driving in my life, but almost none of it had to do with use of phones. I’ve seen people swerve out of lanes while they were eating, putting on makeup, reading books, looking at maps and even kissing. I’ve seen people obviously distracted because of looking at billboards, road signs, scenery and traffic accidents. We’ve all seen those things. But for some reason, some so-called safety experts have become fixated on banning the use of phones by drivers.

Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board urged all states to make it illegal to use a phone in any way while driving. The NTSB even said the use of earbuds or wireless headsets should be banned. As far as I can tell, nobody has called for a ban on eating while driving, putting on makeup while driving or reading newspapers and maps while driving.

And why is the agency calling for this ban? It says that distracted driving “contributed” to an “estimated” 3,092 deaths last year — and that “some of it” was due to cellphone use. There are a couple of really basic problems with this logic. First, isn’t it interesting that an estimated number is given in such an exact way, giving the illusion of precision? It would be easier to say, “This is what we’re guessing,” but that wouldn’t support their position, so they give you an number to make it appear that the experts know these things.

Keep Reading

If Ayn Rand knew how closely she has become identified with libertarians, she would be spinning in her grave. She loathed libertarians, calling them “hippies” of the New Right.

If you read her comments about libertarians — at the website of the Ayn Rand Institute — you quickly see that Rand didn’t understand any system that could do away with the coercive state. You also suspect that she was a bit jealous that libertarians were getting too much publicity, as she sniffed that they were “stealing” and “plagiarizing” some of her ideas.

I read several of Rand’s books before I ever heard the word “libertarian.” When I was about 14 or 15 years old, my father’s boss gave me a copy of “Anthem.” When I liked that, he recommended “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged.” Her books introduced me to many new ideas, some of which I accepted and some of which I rejected. I consider reading those books important in my later political development, even though I reject the core of her philosophy.

And that’s one of the most interesting and complicated things about Rand. Almost everybody I know who has read her books has rejected her philosophy — which she called objectivism — but most of the readers of those books who went on to become libertarians or anarchists consider her work to have been an important step along the way, even though they did reject what was most important to her. How do we reconcile this seeming contradiction?

Keep Reading