Of Lights and Liberty

The Public Is Still Uneasy with the Specter of Big Brother


Recently, while returning from lunch with a colleague, we observed a person blatantly running a red light. This event prompted my colleague to remark that he couldn’t understand why the government had not installed cameras to photograph the license plates of people who run red lights. I pondered his remark briefly, then told him that I considered the lack of cameras to be good news. I’ll explain.

Let me begin by stating that people who run stoplights endanger the safety of others. And let me add that, at least in my town, red-light running seems to be an increasingly common action that has occasionally led to severe automobile accidents.

How then can I think that the government’s unwillingness to install stoplight cameras is good news? It has nothing to do with my strong desire not to pay higher taxes, though I am overtaxed already. Even with a large number of stoplights, my share of the cost of cameras would be rather small and would certainly be dwarfed by my existing tax burden. Moreover, I do not delude myself into thinking that the need to raise taxes to fund the cameras amounts to a serious constraint on government expansion.

Instead, my happiness at the lack of cameras derives from my perception that the factor constraining the government’s willingness to install cameras is the public’s uneasiness with the specter of “Big Brother.” Admittedly, this small instance of Big Brother might save some lives and would be a relatively minor encroachment on our freedom. Nor would the installation of stoplight cameras be significantly different in principle from having a police officer monitor the intersection. However, in this era of bipartisan support for the nanny-statism espoused in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s It Takes a Village, it is heartening to see at least one example of people’s desire for liberty outweighing their demand for safety.

Unfortunately, such instances of freedom taking precedence over safety are too rare. The same society that rejects stoplight cameras readily embraces government oversight of banking and other financial dealings, government-mandated searches before boarding airplanes, the war on drugs and tobacco, and the levying of taxes to fund a myriad of redistributionist schemes.

One can only hope that the public revulsion against Big Brother hiding in every stoplight spreads to other parts of our lives. For, as Benjamin Franklin said, “they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”


March 2001

comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


July/August 2014

The United States' corporate tax burden is the highest in the world, but innovators will always find a way to duck away from Uncle Sam's reach. Doug Bandow explains how those with the means are renouncing their citizenship in increasing numbers, while J. Dayne Girard describes the innovative use of freeports to shield wealth from the myriad taxes and duties imposed on it as it moves around the world. Of course the politicians brand all of these people unpatriotic, hoping you won't think too hard about the difference between the usual crony-capitalist suspects and the global creative elite that have done so much to improve our lives. In a special tech section, Joseph Diedrich, Thomas Bogle, and Matthew McCaffrey look at various ways these innovators add value to our lives--even in ways they probably never expected.
Download Free PDF