Our friends on the conservative-libertarian side of things sometimes do good work in exposing and opposing wacky government intervention in things that the government shouldn't be involved in, but sometimes they can get a bit wacky themselves. Matt Welch of Reason Foundation has this article on Opposing Views on the supposedly "idiotic" new laws recently signed by Cal. Gov. Schwarzenegger. The anti-paparrazi law may well get struck down, notwithstanding my gut reaction that paparrazi should be shot on sight. But Welch also counts among the supposedly idiotic new laws, "A law requiring DUI convicts in four counties to install ignition-interlock breathalyzer devices on their cars."

Does this guy have any idea how much death and destruction is caused by drunk drivers? Even if we put aside the human element and look at things in strictly economic terms, a single injury-causing accident can rack up huge costs in lost income and medical and rehabilitation expenses. Even a noninjury fender-bender costs many, many thousands of dollars. Combine this with a sound basis for believing that interlocks are effective for the duration of their installation, and I don't see anything "idiotic" about this law.

If the losses fell only on the drunk driver, one might make a libertarian case for letting him bear the fruits of his own misconduct, but we all know they do not. Protecting people from the misdeeds of others, acts in which they have no choice, is precisely the proper role of government. Recognizing that distinction is the difference between being a libertarian and being an anarchist.