In this age of galloping leviathan, one cause for joy is New Hampshire's continued willingness to thumb its nose at various dictates from Washington, D.C. In some cases, the state's federalism obstinacy prohibits it from receiving Uncle Sam's largess — a penalty that many Granite Staters consider a sign of honor.
But the joy of New Hampshire was muted a bit this spring when the state's General Court (the legislature) flirted with giving up one of its most celebrated examples of recalcitrance— the refusal to adopt mandatory seat belt laws for adults. A bill mandating the wearing of seat belts made it through the state's House of Representatives before stalling in a Senate committee. What's more, proponents scored a victory by placing a "seat belt policy exploratory committee" rider on a completely unrelated piece of legislation.
The standard justification for seat belt laws — that government is looking out for your well-being — would have little truck in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire. So bill proponents tried a different tack; as noted in an AP story, they claimed that they're simply looking out for the taxpayer:
"Live Free or Die would be great but you expect everyone to pay for you," said Rep. Jennifer Brown, the bill's prime sponsor. "The state has to pick up the medical bills and it could be for the rest of your life."
State. Sen. Maggie Hassan said mandating seat belt usage is just as much about her rights as those who don't like the idea.
"People like me who use my seat belt will wind up paying for people who don't," she said. "This is about my rights."
Notice the strange conception of "rights" assumed by this argument: Because government offers a benefit, government — acting on behalf of "taxpayer rights" — can dictate people's behavior because of the possibility that some people who engage in that behavior might use that benefit. (This is different than, say, work requirements for welfare — in that case, people choose to accept a benefit, and government is placing a condition on the receipt of that benefit.)
The slippery slope problem of such thinking is obvious. Because government provides an education benefit to children, can it mandate certain behaviors for adults of child-bearing age? Because government provides some health benefits, can it regulate everyone's risk-taking behavior? Because government provides retirement benefits, can it dictate people's employment decisions?
This should prompt good civil libertarians to look skeptically at any proposal to create or expand government benefits. Laocoon's warning can be updated: Beware of politicians bearing benefits.