Live Free Or Die

To this day, New Hampshire remains the only state in the country that has not yet passed a law requiring adult passengers to wear seat belts. With an anthem of “Live Free or Die,” New Hampshire residents see the law as a menacing force, an example of government bullying that threatens the historical independence attached to citizens of the state. But how does this make sense? If passing such a law will protect and save lives, why not give up your freedom of choice to wear a seat belt or not? Most readily debated in the media over the past few years, a state news paper warns and educates the public on the controversy:

"Your decision-making authority will be taken by degrees, one good-for-you regulation at a time, until legislators are satisfied that you are safe. And they will never be satisfied."

This quote echoes the popular cultural narrative of a native New Hampshire resident. With a strong belief in individual freedom, residents believe this law will allow government to slowly control other personal decisions. This type of surveillance, and bodily control through law, is not as ridiculous to object to as one may think. Surely, you could argue that if people really believe it is in their best interest not to wear a seat belt, New Hampshire should rephrase their anthem to “Live Free AND Die.” But this controversy, little to do with an actual decision to wear a seat belt or not, is more than relevant to a larger issue. Under the Bush administration, we have seen our rights as citizens and free individuals slowly taken away from us. After the attacks of 9/11, privacy acts were abolished, surveillance tactics made legal and authority figures more powerful all for “our own good.” Thus, I believe New Hampshire’s rebellion is the strength of one state in opposition to a much larger issue. New Hampshire challenges the moral infringement of our rights wrongfully justified by government.