Jewish World Review Dec. 16, 2005 / 15 Kislev, 5766

Taking on the ‘Nanny’ state

By Tucker Carlson

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Of all the crackpot things I've said in public over the years, nothing has elicited more hate mail than the time I came out against seatbelts. It was about five years ago, and I was giving a ride to a reporter from People magazine. We were crossing Capitol Hill in my elderly Volvo when she remarked upon the fact I was violating the law by not wearing my seatbelt. That's right, I said, and launched into a lecture about the tyranny of the nanny state. I can't remember if I actually quoted Patrick Henry. I do remember I got pretty hot. She put it in her magazine.

Within hours of publication I had dozens of calls and e-mails from angry, self-righteous strangers demanding to know how I dared — dared! — say something unkind about seatbelts. They save lives! Are you against saving lives? Are you for traffic deaths? You monster!

I'm not against saving lives, of course, or even against seatbelts. I wore mine once, in a snowstorm in Connecticut in 1988. In the end I didn't crash, so the seatbelt didn't work. Plus it wrinkled my shirt. I haven't made the same mistake again.

But enough about me. The point is not that seatbelts are bad or that I don't care for them, but that seatbelt laws are insulting to the American spirit. Should the state really protect competent adults from themselves? And if so, what's the message of punishing someone for ignoring his own safety? Protect yourself or we'll kill you?

Seatbelt laws are ludicrous and infuriating, exactly the sort of thoughtless, petty harassment that got Sam Adams so worked up. Unfortunately, 230 years later, no one seems to care.

Except for Kenneth Prazak. Kenneth Prazak cares. The 53-year-old Illinois man spent two years and more than $2,000 fighting a $25 seatbelt violation. Prazak wasn't speeding or driving recklessly or endangering the lives of other motorists when he was pulled over. As he put it, "I was just minding my own business driving down the road." In the end, members of the jury didn't care. They ruled against him. Yet in the process of fighting his lost cause, Prazak made a stirring case for personal freedom.

Kenneth Prazak was a guest on the show Wednesay, and there's no doubt in my mind that a lot of viewers will hate him. Many others will write him off as a crank. They have a point. By conventional standards, Prazak is a crank. Ordinary people would rather suffer indignities at the hands of the state than be considered weird by their friends. But every generation raises up individuals willing to think for themselves, people who've decided they're not going to pay the tea tax, who've had it with sitting at the rear of the bus. Society doesn't always welcome people like this; they tend to be difficult. But history usually rewards them.

So mock Kenneth Prazak if you will. But before you do, see if you can argue with the reasoning of his closing argument: "The real issue here is, who owns your life? Is it yours or is it government's?" His conclusion: "If government makes my choice for me, I am no longer free."

Melodramatic? Sure it is. But that doesn't mean it's not true. Keep in mind, small laws add up to big tyrannies.