By: dr. Matevž Tomšič
Within societies that are part of the Western world, it is generally accepted that people are free. We have democracy that allows us to participate in exercising power (mostly indirectly through elected representatives, and sometimes directly through referendums); we have a range of legally protected human rights and civil liberties considered “inalienable” (meaning they can only be restricted in exceptional circumstances); and, on top of it all, we have a welfare state (more prevalent in Europe, less so in the United States) that enables a decent life and provides resources for us to exercise this freedom in practice as active citizens. Some even critically argue that modern Western society is too individualistic, with people losing their sense of social responsibility and pursuing only their selfish motives.
The scope of freedom enjoyed by Europeans and other Westerners today is greater than ever before. In past historical periods, a privileged minority made decisions about everything, and ordinary people, in a completely subordinate position, had to follow. Nowadays, individuals are not exposed to the danger of losing their freedom or even their lives for expressing disagreement with the actions of authorities or behaving contrary to widely accepted norms (which was happening in the eastern part of Europe just a few decades ago).
However, tendencies to control individuals’ lives still exist, and in recent years, they seem to be strengthening. Many in the political sphere and elsewhere show an irresistible desire to prescribe how fellow citizens should behave, think, and speak. They typically present themselves with ostensibly “humane” reasons, in the name of some kind of “higher good” or “common interest”. However, the problem is that such intentions are often highly ideologically motivated, with a predisposition to impose certain thought patterns and lifestyles under the guise of humanity.
Of course, for a society to function in an orderly manner, certain common rules that are binding for all its members are needed. These rules bring some limitations to people. However, to consider a society truly free, only those common rules that are genuinely necessary, providing verifiable benefits greater than the harm caused by restrictions, should exist. Anything else represents unacceptable violations of so-called negative freedom (“freedom from”), which means the absence of external interventions in individuals’ lives.
An ongoing example of such intervention is a proposal in the resolution on the national road safety programme for the period from 2023 to 2030, which aims to lower the legal blood alcohol concentration limit for motor vehicle drivers to 0.0. This means that someone intending to drive will not be allowed to have a glass of wine or a beer with lunch. Even if they consumed a bit more the night before, they could be “over the limit” the next day. Such restrictiveness has no actual relevance to road safety. Someone who consumes a small amount of alcohol can safely operate a vehicle. A whole range of other factors (such as stress) has a more significant impact during driving. Those who cause traffic accidents typically far exceed the current limit of 0.5 per mill.
This limitation is purely about moralism. Certain self-proclaimed “guardians of morality” want to deprive people of some small pleasures because they find them inappropriate. What is particularly problematic is that the mentioned resolution was adopted in parliament without a single vote against. This means that the entire Slovenian political scene, regardless of ideological divisions, is inclined to this kind of tendency. Political consensus is apparently not necessarily something positive.
