On the day of the creation of this text, the Serbian Prime Minister quotes an "old Chinese proverb" (by the way, have you heard this one: "What is the best old Japanese proverb? 'Don't trust old Chinese proverbs!'"), it is time for us to start a column in the spirit of reaching out for pearls made of mothballs. Here, for example, the wise Pascal summed up his life's knowledge in the fact that "All man's misfortunes come from one source - not being able to sit quietly in a room." Eh, that dear philosophical commonplace, convenient to quote on various occasions... On the one hand, isn't it impossible to deny the deep accuracy of the ancient Pascal's conclusion that says that the devil personally drags us into every participation in the turmoil of the world - which is therefore a contribution to the same (less to the world, more commotion)? On the other hand, what do we get out of it when, according to Pascal's insight, one cannot (live) after all, that is, when it is quite clear that - literally and metaphorically - "leaving the room" is something, so to speak, equal to life? Yes, non-participation in the things of this world saves you in advance from a series of individual whites, but also from joy and excitement, that is, it makes your life miserable in itself...
Why these December thoughts? Well, my dears, I think that the reason for this is in the nature of the current government of the country of Serbia: it is neither Seseljev nor Weberian, but - Pascalian. Namely, she believes that life is a deadly phenomenon (which is undoubtedly true) and that it is therefore best to have as little of it as possible: less life, less death. The equation is simple, irrefutable and - perfectly idiotic. More precisely, deeply necrophilic, turned against every possibility of life as a polygon of freedom, enjoyment and happiness, and of course also misfortune, sorrow, danger - which is the other side of the same coin, and one does not work without the other.
Some kids "crashed" their cars into the river, drunk, out of age, without a driver's license; some others experienced - not survived, at least not all - some similar accidents. The media, in their morbid search for sensations that stir up emotions, created a typically demagogic moral panic about it, and the government reacted to it with a pascalian incantation: why shouldn't we ban younger adults from getting behind the wheel, even if only late at night? Why don't we interrupt movies and TV series with moronic warnings that how Bruce Willis drives in Die hard "does not comply with traffic safety regulations"? We have already banned buying alcohol at night (in Belgrade), for everyone, young and old, drivers or pedestrians. Yes, it is unconstitutional, but what does it matter?
It is easy to mobilize people's emotions during tragedies, it is easy to support their primal fears, from which they gladly flee into the infantilizing "safety" of random repression. Of course, it would be wonderful if those terrible deaths had never happened; it would be great if such things did not happen in the future, although, I must tell you: they will happen. This is, unfortunately, the dark side of human freedom: not everyone knows how to deal with it, some simply rape it, and it ends tragically for them and others. Let's face it, they are a convincing minority: in the vast majority of cases, the one who gets behind the wheel doesn't die, the one who gets drunk doesn't do something stupid, but has a little fun and sobers up after a hangover, etc. People, even those in their twenties, are actually quite responsible creatures for the most part...
What does this mean? That those who do not know how to carry their freedom should be helped to learn it, and not to abolish freedom for everyone just because some will try (and often succeed) to "abuse" it. The state is not a tyrannical mother who will keep the citizens under lock and key and determine their dinner. The state is not a tyrannical father who will arbitrarily pronounce bans, even if they are completely absurd and encroach on inalienable constitutional rights. The state, for example, cannot divide citizens into adults and more mature: either you are of age or you are not! If you are, let's say at eighteen, if you can vote in elections, pay taxes and join the army, then by God you can drive a car! When and as much as you want! Of course, you have to have a permit, and if you break the rules you have to be punished. But you, individually, and not all of them...
This "Pascalian" (it's clear to you that I'm just "abusing" the great Frenchman here) approach of the state towards the citizen - and for which he gets rapturous applause from the citizens of the small town, which is what he's counting on! - is a typical mode of thinking and action of the ultraconservative right. She sees the modern world as a "corrupted place" that needs to be forced back into the (never really existing) idyll of "traditional values" somehow, if only by force. The right always first produces a moral panic and then succumbs to it, as if it was produced by the "objective situation" and not itself; from that it goes into state of hysteresis, and it results in one or another prohibitions of constitutionally non-prohibited things: during that time, "decent citizens" either silently applaud the repression or simply "hurt their ears", because it seems to them that this or that act of arbitrary, constitutional coercion does not affect them personally concerns because, as far as I know, they are not young, they don't drive cars, they don't go out at night, they don't drink, not this, not that... Until something comes up that concerns them as well (for example, a ban eating peanuts on Thursdays, using the word "although" in the morning, walking on the right side of the sidewalk for green-eyed people or the ban on wearing yellow socks on the territory of the Kolubara district, in principle, they are nothing more crazy than the ban on buying beer at night or the unlimited use of one's own motor vehicle, with a driver's license). but then, look, it's too late.
