First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Well, that didn’t take nearly as long as we thought, now did it?

Three short years ago, I cautioned/warned/completely panicked that Big Brother was looking to take over auto insurance, offering cheap coverage to anyone willing to — voluntarily, mind you — hook a black box up to their cars so Big Insurance could monitor their every “instance of extreme speed” in return for about a $20-a-month rebate on their premium. Privacy? Data protection? Freedom from prosecution? Fuggedaboutit! Anyone who signed up was effectively volunteering for 24-hour surveillance.

It sounded like a ride down Orwell’s slippery slope, said I. You’re a paranoid, life-endangering scofflaw, said the critics.

Well, as it turns out, it seems I wasn’t nearly paranoid enough. News out of EU last week is that the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) of the European Parliament approved the — mandatory, this time — installation of black boxes in new cars that not only monitor your speed, but will actually prevent you from speeding. Called an Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) system, it’s essentially a GPS device that not only tracks your speed, but should you exceed the posted limit, cuts your engine’s power so, well, you can’t exceed said speed limit. This will apply to all new cars sold in Europe as early as 2022. Yes, all new cars will be strictly limited to exactly whatever the posted speed is. No, there won’t be a Lamborghini Aventador exemption.

Now forgetting, just for a minute, the philosophical and fiscal quandaries — local constabularies are not going to be very happy about the loss of speeding ticket revenues — how is this going to work practically? If all new cars are to blessed with these restrictors, what’s to stop enterprising speeders from simply holding on to their older — but gloriously noncompliant — rides? Indeed, will an entire sub-industry spring up refurbishing, rebuilding or, hell, completely remaking old sports/supercars so scofflaws can play Lightning McQueen amongst the supplicants? And if so, will Big Brother actually come into our homes — OK, our garages — and force us to retrofit our Ferrari 458/Chevrolet Camaro SS/Honda-Civic-with-way-too-big-a-turbo with an official, government-approved, sealed-with-a-tag ISA? How many civil liberties are the Justin Jack Boots of the world willing to trample in their quest for driving Utopia?

Ok, back to the slippery slope argument, it seems the EU is looking to move this technology onto the Black Diamond Hill pronto. So, while the European Transport Safety Council is recommending that a “full on/off switch” for the limiters should be included “to aid public acceptance at introduction,” that does imply even stricter rules — i.e. no on/off switch — are in the pipeline.

The reason these rules are going to be implemented is the ESTC estimates the proposed new rules will save as many as 5,000 lives a year. Now, before I start any argument on the sanctity/importance/relative value of saving lives, just let me remind faithful readers that my only sister — and her unborn child — were killed in a collision that these measures were specifically designed to prevent. Speeding driver. Passing too many cars. Unwilling to let up on the gas. The same stupid and so-very-unnecessary imbecility that we’ve all heard too many times before.

So, do I applaud the automobile industry’s every safety advance? Absolutely. Do I don my seatbelt every time I get behind the wheel? Damn straight. I don’t drink or take drugs behind the wheel, I don’t drive when I am sleepy and I have no problem slowing down for inclement conditions. I don’t want me, mine or, in fact, yours becoming a little cross on the side of any highway. But, would I be willing to trade my civil liberties — c’mon, just a few of ‘em, Dave. Don’t be such a hard-ass — to have a sister and a nephew, not to mention the best friend she married? As much as I’ve had 32 long years of resentment to fester, I would not.

And I resent the hypocrisy of those who would. For a little perspective for all you lacking the I-love-to-drive gene, imagine you’re a foodie. How would you feel if the government — in the name of saving lives, as they always do — came into your house and installed a calorie meter in your kitchen. As soon as you passed the 2,200 calories the USDA recommends for a 60 year-old-male, alarm bells would clang, kitchen lights flash. And if such an alert/warning/shame didn’t slow you down, they’d automatically lock up your fridge for the rest of the day.

Don’t laugh, it’s a worthwhile cause — more laudable, in fact, than restricting speed: According to the latest statistics from the New England Journal of Medicine, obesity kills more people worldwide than car crashes, terror attacks and Alzheimer’s combined. In fact, obesity kills ten times more Americans than do car accidents. Still no outcry? No demand for justice? Oh, you like eating.

Of course, this doesn’t, in any way, account for the truly horrible fact that car crashes injure others; over-eating, after all, is simply self-harm. Leaving aside the argument that all harm, self or otherwise, is a public issue, not to mention the hypocrisy of many current bans — exactly how does smoking in a park actually harm others? — what truly offends is, for many of the nattering nabobs of negativity rallying behind this call for diminished driving, the question of excessive speed has nothing to do with high-minded ethics. It’s simple disapproval. Altogether too often, the discourse descends into “things I don’t like doing should be banned; those I like shouldn’t.” When the good of others finally reaches their door, as Lutheran priest Martin Niemöller so sublimely advocated, mute they stand.

Even when motivations be pure, bans on anything, no matter how laudable, shouldn’t be implemented with the casualness that has become far too commonplace these days. We are far too eager to proscribe devices, activities and discourse simply because we don’t approve of them. What truly frightens me, then, is not so much that in my doddering years I won’t be able to drive like a silly bugger. But that, if the never-ending search for safety uber alles really does become the defining characteristic of our culture, the civil liberties I so believe in will come to be its most endangered.