NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, the title says it all, but I'll just start us off.

I have been reading a lot of threads on this forum that look at the rights of individuals, the hottest of those include threads on Freedom of Belief (Religious belief or Other) and Gay Marriages. While the arguments for and against in these topics are well defined, It hasn't really been discussed weather its fair to impose the will of a majority (or Minority) on everyone.

Do you think it's fair to impose social policy on an unwilling populus regardless of how small it is?


Semar

Nb. Please Keep it to social policy only, that is Rights of Marriage, Freedom of Speech, Religion, Expression or closely related topics

but but... the antagonists in these issues persistently whine how their rights are violated. :rolleyes:

It's True, but just because their whining is annoying, doesn’t make their complaint any less valid.

This is a difficult topic, but I want people to understand what they are doing before they do it, think about the effect you will have on people by intervening in their lives either directly (Eg. Interventions) or Indirectly (Eg. Through electing governments with social Agendas) the effect is not always bad, but you have to look at the underlying issue carefully, because we could be unnecessarily effecting someone's life when nothing needed to be changed in the first place.

Semar

One thing many people don't realise is that the First Amendment was put in place to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech needs no protection. So minorities are the ones who really get use of the First Amendment, moreso than others. Which is why I support neo-Nazis being able to march, because they're expression is unpopular, and they need the protection. Same thing for everything else. I chose "Yes, But only where harm could befall the Individual or Population at Large".

I guess if you voted for individual freedom, and leaving people alone instead of imposing social policy, I get to keep my firearms.

I chose the third option, but I would like to qualify my vote by saying social policies should not be imposed to protect the individual from his own stupidity. Only to protect population at large from his stupidity. For instance, I don't agree with seatbelt laws. A person who doesn't buckle up hurts nobody but himself, and his life is his own business.

I concur. As long as a person's activities don't threaten the interests of anyone else (for instance, theft, rape and murder threaten the interests of others), then people should be allowed to do whatever stupid thing takes their fancy. A society which imposes nanny-like laws on its denizens defies the basic principles of evolution. People who do stupid things should be allowed to face the consequences of their actions.

Regardless of any kind of darwinian motive, another major point is that "stupid" and "sensible" with regard to activities are thoroughly subjective, and people can hold different ideas on what these are defined as. What if the nanny-like government told us that sex was stupid, so we weren't allowed to do it, or that we had to cut off our hands "for our own safety"? Those are extreme examples, but the principle remains. The state's concept of "good" and "bad" may not correlate to the ideas of the man-on-the-street. Thus the government should not be able to mandate what we should or shouldn't do within our own lives.

I concur. As long as a person's activities don't threaten the interests of anyone else (for instance, theft, rape and murder threaten the interests of others), then people should be allowed to do whatever stupid thing takes their fancy. A society which imposes nanny-like laws on its denizens defies the basic principles of evolution. People who do stupid things should be allowed to face the consequences of their actions.


Let's hear it for Libertarianism!
I think that if you got the word out, you could sway many to vote that way.

Yes, I agree. If we had to do what we were told, wouldn't the government be taking away our own free will? It's scary to think that a group of people can basically take control of your life. If this were to happen, why would life be worth living? Freedom of choice is what it's all about. I say do what you want, when you want to, just as long as mankind doesn't spiral down with you.

The only responsibility of government should be to ensure the safety and opportunity of the people, that is what freedom is.

I guess if you voted for individual freedom, and leaving people alone instead of imposing social policy, I get to keep my firearms.

You sure do.

There should have been an option "Other."

Almost all politics has been concerned, one way or the other, with the apparent conflict between individual rights and the "rights" of society as a whole. The most workable solutions to this conundrum have been those which strove to balance the rights of individuals with those of society.

Human nature being what it is, any society which fails to take into account human frailties such as greed, avarice, envy, laziness, etc., is doomed to failure. Any society which does not insist on a modicum of cooperativeness between its members ( thus periodically overriding individual rights to a degree ) is doomed to stagnation at the very least.

Strive for balance, grasshopper! :)

Ok, So generally most of the posters here believe that the right of the individual to do whatever they like (regardless of the stupidity/depravity/insanity of that act) with most saying that some activities should be controlled or banned because they represent a danger to society at large in one manner or another.

While I can't say I'm surprised at the result, I am wondering how that actually equates into our actions. I refer you back to my original post which was pointed towards the government's right to legislate social policy, Gay marriage presents the most heated debate and the foil to the result of the poll this far.

Technically speaking, Gay Marriage/Unions are Social Policy and I can't imagine that many would draw a direct link between physical risk in the community and gay couples, so based on the poll result all of you would have said yes based on the argument given. But that's not how it comes out in the real world, we know for a fact that over 50% of Americans oppose gay union of any type (And a fair few of the posters were American).

My point is, while we do advocate this idea of social choice free of government intervention, are we setting a double standard by making exceptions for situations that we find immoral, Indecent or unacceptable in a given culture.

Semar

NB. I'm not advocating gay marriages pre se it’s just an example. Another would be forced detention of refugees in Australia or the limitations placed on the practise of Non-Muslim religions in some Middle Eastern countries

In any country that truly wants to call itself free, you should be able to do whatever you want without inflicting force or attempting fraud against anyone else. It's so simple.
Your rights are given in full at birth, but they end at the tip of your nose.
At least this is the way I'd like to see it, which is why my voter's reg card reads LIBERTARIAN.

What's the point of this??

Technically speaking, Gay Marriage/Unions are Social Policy and I can't imagine that many would draw a direct link between physical risk in the community and gay couples, so based on the poll result all of you would have said yes based on the argument given. But that's not how it comes out in the real world, we know for a fact that over 50% of Americans oppose gay union of any type (And a fair few of the posters were American).

That's not quite true. While most Americans are against gay marriage, if you counted the pro gay marriage, and pro civil union people, there are more of them than against no union at all.

For instance, I don't agree with seatbelt laws. A person who doesn't buckle up hurts nobody but himself, and his life is his own business.
This isn't quite true. A person that doesn't buckle up hurts those individuals who share his insurance company, as insurance rates would rise due to providing extra medical care to those people. Also, it hurts the other people in the hospital, as their care would most likely be delayed to provide care for the non-seatbelt wearer as the non-seatbelt wearer's need is probably more dire.

This isn't quite true. A person that doesn't buckle up hurts those individuals who share his insurance company, as insurance rates would rise due to providing extra medical care to those people. Also, it hurts the other people in the hospital, as their care would most likely be delayed to provide care for the non-seatbelt wearer as the non-seatbelt wearer's need is probably more dire.

In a less regulated nation, the insurance company could refuse to reimburse you unless you were wearing a seatbelt. Fixes everything, unless you're still stupid enough not to put one on.

Quite simply, people have a right to believe as I do. If they don't, I have a right to say they are wrong. :)

In a less regulated nation, the insurance company could refuse to reimburse you unless you were wearing a seatbelt. Fixes everything, unless you're still stupid enough not to put one on.
Yes, but requiring seatbelts also fixes everything, and without the slippery slope of deregulation.

Yes, but requiring seatbelts also fixes everything, and without the slippery slope of deregulation.
I don't think I can shake your beliefs, but I don't agree that it's a slippery slope at all.
The opposite side of the Liberty coin is Responsibility. If you don't have any, you suffer. Too bad.
Requiring anything more from a taxpayer than to work and pay them is rediculous, but I'm almost sick of arguing the deregulation/less government position already on these boards.
Nobody changes their minds, so I just live and let live. Or maybe I'm in a good mood. Dunno.

I chose the third option, but I would like to qualify my vote by saying social policies should not be imposed to protect the individual from his own stupidity. Only to protect population at large from his stupidity. For instance, I don't agree with seatbelt laws. A person who doesn't buckle up hurts nobody but himself, and his life is his own business.

That's not true.

People who don't buckle up raise insurance costs for ALL of us.

That's not true.

People who don't buckle up raise insurance costs for ALL of us.

I'd say let the insurance company put in a clause for not wearing one, if they (the company) don't want the risk.

It's just not right to pre-emptively punish everyone for a couple of people's mistakes.

And that's what no-victim laws do.

I have been reading a lot of threads on this forum that look at the rights of individuals, the hottest of those include threads on Freedom of Belief (Religious belief or Other) and Gay Marriages. While the arguments for and against in these topics are well defined, It hasn't really been discussed
I voted for the fourth option, but I would prefer if you had seperated option #3:

"Yes, But only where harm could befall the Individual"

"Yes, But only where harm could befall the Population at Large"

I would have voted for the latter option. I think that drugs should all be legalised. People should be free to harm themselves if they want. I think that guns and other very lethal weapons should be very restricted. People should not be free to harm others like that.

I guess if you voted for individual freedom, and leaving people alone instead of imposing social policy, I get to keep my firearms.
Man, what is your obsession with your firearms?

For instance, I don't agree with seatbelt laws. A person who doesn't buckle up hurts nobody but himself, and his life is his own business.
Actually, if there are other people in the car with the unseatbelted person, and they are in a crash, it is more than likely that the unbuckled individual will plunge forward or backwards and hurt or kill other people in the car.

I'd say let the insurance company put in a clause for not wearing one, if they (the company) don't want the risk.

It is not the insurance company's decision. Sure, it would be if you got into an accident and were not wearing your seatbelt and your company could pay or not according to your policy.

But what if I run a red-light and slam into someone... and he or she is not wearing a seatbelt? I am at fault... so my insurance company has to pay. Right?

But their costs are higher than they would have been had the person been wearing a seatbelt. It doesn't matter if no one wants to insure idiots who don't wear seatbelts... It doesn't even matter that those people will have higher premiums. The cost for everyone still goes up, because the average medical expense of an accident goes up.

EDIT: And you cannot solve the problem, according to your logic, by making it a matter of law that liability is decreased where the victim was unseatbelted... because that is just another way of legislating the social policy that the state punishes (by, in effect, taxing) driving without a seatbelt.

It is not the insurance company's decision. Sure, it would be if you got into an accident and were not wearing your seatbelt and your company could pay or not according to your policy.

But what if I run a red-light and slam into someone... and he or she is not wearing a seatbelt? I am at fault... so my insurance company has to pay. Right?


No. If that were the case there'd be no such insurance as the type that covers for uninsureds--and everyone would be forced to have insurance. Basically, when they purchase their own insurance, all insurance companies put a clause in that covers every instance of not wearing a seatbelt. If the person hit, even if they're the "victim" doesn't get a dime if they're not wearing the belt--unless the "victim's" insurance offers a no-seatbelt clause, in which case, the "victim's" insurance company pays. If they don't have to pay because their own customer didn't have the coverage, your own insurance company won't have to pay either.


But their costs are higher than they would have been had the person been wearing a seatbelt. It doesn't matter if no one wants to insure idiots who don't wear seatbelts... It doesn't even matter that those people will have higher premiums. The cost for everyone still goes up, because the average medical expense of an accident goes up.


You seem to think someone always has to pay. That's not always the case, regardless of the medical expense. Your insurance can have a universal code that says, "If not wearing seatbelt--not insured."


EDIT: And you cannot solve the problem, according to your logic, by making it a matter of law that liability is decreased where the victim was unseatbelted... because that is just another way of legislating the social policy that the state punishes (by, in effect, taxing) driving without a seatbelt.

No law--market dynamics. Those that offer "no seatbelt wearing" coverage for more will get those customers interested in not wearing seatbelts. If the insurance company chooses to take it on, they can charge more, and the consumer gets to decide (ultimately) if they want to pay the money or not.

There is no right to medical coverage in the US Constitution, after all. And I agree with that. I should have to only pay for me and those I want to pay for.

Leave the responsiblity in the hands of the individual. If they always wear a seatbelt, then they'd have nothing to worry about with a "seatbelt only" policy. If they don't want to, they can pay more due to the market, and insurance companies that offer higher premiums for more coverage.

As long as you don't harm/cause suffering TO OTHERS etc you should be allowed to do as you like. Smoke somewhere where the landlord allows it, don't go into a smoking pub if you don't want lung cancer etc. All drugs and firearms should be legal. The second you start waving your piece at someone or a rape a woman while in the grip of reefer madness (;)), then you should be punished accordingly.

No. If that were the case there'd be no such insurance as the type that covers for uninsureds--and everyone would be forced to have insurance.

How does that follow?

EDIT: (Uninsured motorist insurance protects you against injuries to yourself caused by an uninsured driver. Liability insurance pays for uninsured motorists just the same as insured motorists--if it is your fault, you pay. The point of uninsured motorist insurance is that someone who has no insurance may not have the funds at all to pay your expenses... in which case, even if you sue, there's just nothing there to get, and you are stuck with medical bills. So you pay an extra premium to your own insurance company to pick up your bills when the other driver has no insurance company to pay.)

Basically, when they purchase their own insurance, all insurance companies put a clause in that covers every instance of not wearing a seatbelt. If the person hit, even if they're the "victim" doesn't get a dime if they're not wearing the belt--unless the "victim's" insurance offers a no-seatbelt clause, in which case, the "victim's" insurance company pays. If they don't have to pay because their own customer didn't have the coverage, your own insurance company won't have to pay either.

Great. So then the person can sue me, and I'll have to pay. The whole point of liability insurance is that if someone's property gets damaged or they get hurt, and it is my fault, they have a pretty good legal case for making me pay. In order to avoid a huge expense to myself in that eventuality, I share the risk with other drivers--insurance. I pay a premium so that if the situation above happens, my insurance company will assume some or all of the liability on my behalf.

Now, if insurance companies refuse to pay for injuries to unseatbelted victims, that does not mean that the liability goes away. It remains true that they would not be injured if I had not hit them... and if the insurance company does not pay, I am liable to be sued for damages. Now we're back into the court system... Again, if you limit liability in cases in which someone was not wearing a seatbelt, you issue social policy (and probably violate equal protection as well, since you are basically saying that unseatbelted motorists are not protected against other drivers).

You seem to think someone always has to pay. That's not always the case, regardless of the medical expense. Your insurance can have a universal code that says, "If not wearing seatbelt--not insured."

Yeah. And then whomever is legally liable pays the rest--or whatever the courts determine.

No law--market dynamics. Those that offer "no seatbelt wearing" coverage for more will get those customers interested in not wearing seatbelts. If the insurance company chooses to take it on, they can charge more, and the consumer gets to decide (ultimately) if they want to pay the money or not.

You insist on overlooking the huge externality, namely other drivers who may be liable for the medical expenses of unseatbelted drivers.

There is no right to medical coverage in the US Constitution, after all. And I agree with that. I should have to only pay for me and those I want to pay for.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, if you hurt someone else the law usually makes you pay their expenses. That is what insurance is for, after all.

Leave the responsiblity in the hands of the individual. If they always wear a seatbelt, then they'd have nothing to worry about with a "seatbelt only" policy. If they don't want to, they can pay more due to the market, and insurance companies that offer higher premiums for more coverage.

You are still missing the point. Everyone pays more, whether they wear seatbelts or not, and no matter what company they use.

Look at what just happened in Pennsylvania after they repealed the motorcycle helmet law. I know my premiums jumped a bit, and so did my girlfriend's... relatively minor, considering my chances of hitting a motorcycle are somewhat low... but the jump would be much greater if people became significantly more likely to drive without a seatbelt--something that repeal of seatbelt law might effect.

I guess if you voted for individual freedom, and leaving people alone instead of imposing social policy, I get to keep my firearms.

I voted for the 3rd option (Yes only to prevent harm to others), and you definitely get to keep your firearms. We should all take full advantage of both our first and second amendment rights.

This isn't quite true. A person that doesn't buckle up hurts those individuals who share his insurance company, as insurance rates would rise due to providing extra medical care to those people. Also, it hurts the other people in the hospital, as their care would most likely be delayed to provide care for the non-seatbelt wearer as the non-seatbelt wearer's need is probably more dire.

I will never ever ever buy into this line of reasoning. You can use this exact same logic ("because this may cause insurance rates to jump") to outlaw motorcycles, rock climbing, any potentially hazardous activity whatsoever. This slippery slope ends with everyone sitting on their duff all day every day.

I will never ever ever buy into this line of reasoning. You can use this exact same logic ("because this may cause insurance rates to jump") to outlaw motorcycles, rock climbing, any potentially hazardous activity whatsoever. This slippery slope ends with everyone sitting on their duff all day every day.

You said it: slippery slope.

Your argument is entirely fallacious.

The problem here is, first, that some people do not believe the repeal of seatbelt laws would cause insurance rates to jump (or require some other legislative action against the unseatbelted). This is an argument about fact... I think previous posts have adequately established the point.

But the slippery slope assumes that there is no marginal or opportunity cost analysis. There is. We make seatbelts mandatory because the restriction on the individual -- he or she has to do something beneficial for him anyway, and loses remarkably little freedom -- is negligible compared to the social benefits, e.g. reduced insurance costs, fewer deaths, less strain on emergency medical care... and on and on.

By no means does the argument imply that every activity that has a potential social cost should be outlawed. Rather, if the social cost outweighs the individual benefit, then the activity should be prohibited. Granted, there is no objective standard for what degree of cost merits such action... it is a political question. But it is for that very reason that we turn to politics to determine the answers to such questions. No cut-and-dry formula supplies the answer.

(Incidentally, I would be all for banning motorcycles, at least on the road. Frankly, I don't see how someone's "freedom" to drive the kind of vehicle they desire is so terribly important. Take them off the road!)

(Rock climbing, of course, has to stay... I love to climb, and I suspect that its pressure on insurance prices is rather negligible. This, of course, is something that health insurance companies can deal with relative to the individual... I am perfectly happy to see insurance companies charging more for individuals with risky hobbies or occupations. Insurance companies can therefore localize risk in such activities to just those people who participate in them. This is not possible when it comes to motorists' liability insurance.)

You said it: slippery slope.

Your argument is entirely fallacious.

The problem here is, first, that some people do not believe the repeal of seatbelt laws would cause insurance rates to jump (or require some other legislative action against the unseatbelted). This is an argument about fact... I think previous posts have adequately established the point.

But the slippery slope assumes that there is no marginal or opportunity cost analysis. There is. We make seatbelts mandatory because the restriction on the individual -- he or she has to do something beneficial for him anyway, and loses remarkably little freedom -- is negligible compared to the social benefits, e.g. reduced insurance costs, fewer deaths, less strain on emergency medical care... and on and on.

By no means does the argument imply that every activity that has a potential social cost should be outlawed. Rather, if the social cost outweighs the individual benefit, then the activity should be prohibited. Granted, there is no objective standard for what degree of cost merits such action... it is a political question. But it is for that very reason that we turn to politics to determine the answers to such questions. No cut-and-dry formula supplies the answer.

(Incidentally, I would be all for banning motorcycles, at least on the road. Frankly, I don't see how someone's "freedom" to drive the kind of vehicle they desire is so terribly important. Take them off the road!)

(Rock climbing, of course, has to stay... I love to climb, and I suspect that its pressure on insurance prices is rather negligible. This, of course, is something that health insurance companies can deal with relative to the individual... I am perfectly happy to see insurance companies charging more for individuals with risky hobbies or occupations. Insurance companies can therefore localize risk in such activities to just those people who participate in them. This is not possible when it comes to motorists' liability insurance.)

Okay, we now know that you prefer social control to freedom. That's fine. Victimless crimes are silly, though. Why should anyone be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt, and making it around the world, without any incident?

You want to stop prices from going up? Stop the lawyers from suing for hellacious amounts of money.

If someone drives around without their seatbelt, yes, they are taking their own lives into their own hands. That's freedom. If someone hits them, and they get hurt or killed due to them not wearing the seatbelt, it's their own fault, and no one should be compensated more. If they wanted the added security, they would have worn the belt.

If they're going to be dumb and get killed, let 'em. It's not your job (or the government's for that matter) to "save" them from themselves.

Don't get me wrong, the person who hit them should still be punished for not paying attention (if it was their fault).

That's not quite true. While most Americans are against gay marriage, if you counted the pro gay marriage, and pro civil union people, there are more of them than against no union at all.

Its hard to say, It depends on who you ask (IE. what news service your watching, or what source is cited) but you could be right, but my point is still reasonably valid, even with the slight conservative shift on the poll.

The seatbelt and smoking arguments are interesting here because they highlight the problems behind drawing that "line in the sand" between where a personal action is a reasonable danger to people or not. I guess it goes to prove that we could never really detach government policy from social freedoms, and that we have to be careful about who we vote to maintain that balance, lest we all end up wearing grey jumpsuits, eat gruel and spend 65+ hours per day at work.

Semar

Okay, we now know that you prefer social control to freedom.

Don't even try to set up that straw man; it won't work. I think people should pay for their own risks, the same as you. It's just that in the case of vehicular safety, the risks are socialized no matter what you do--short of eliminating liability law, anyway.

Victimless crimes are silly, though.

Yes, they are. I hate the entire notion. It's just that refusing to wear a seatbelt has negative social consequences, making it far from victimless--indeed, there are far more victims from this crime than from most!

Why should anyone be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt, and making it around the world, without any incident?

Because he or she has made a bet with other people's money.

EDIT: By that logic, why should anyone be ticketed for driving on the wrong side of the road, swerving, speeding, running red lights, changing lanes without signalling, driving an uninspected car with poor brakes and going the wrong way up every one-way street they can find... as long as they do so "without any incident"?

You want to stop prices from going up? Stop the lawyers from suing for hellacious amounts of money.

That's another way. But no matter how you slice it, the medical costs are higher to fix the idiots who couldn't wear a strap across their chest than to treat those who could. It doesn't matter what lawyers sue for; what matters is what the hospitals charge.

If someone drives around without their seatbelt, yes, they are taking their own lives into their own hands. That's freedom.

Some freedom. May I ask, what is so vitally important to you about the "freedom" to take such a mindless risk? Seriously... If you could convince me that this is really a vital freedom, maybe you could convince me that it is "worth" the price society has to pay. But that is precisely the point: if everyone is going to pay more in insurance, and various other costs... then the onus is on you to convince us that we should.

If someone hits them, and they get hurt or killed due to them not wearing the seatbelt, it's their own fault, and no one should be compensated more.

You are missing the point. Liability law does not work like that. Suppose someone is not wearing a seatbelt, and I run into them--head on. They go flying through their windshield and bounce off the pavement. Now, I or my insurance company must pay their medical bills. What do we do? Can we say that because they were not wearing a seatbelt, I have no responsibility to them? This seems extreme, considering that I did hit them, and they would have probably been injured either way. Okay... so, maybe I just pay for any injuries that they would have received had they been wearing a seatbelt, but not those for which their own negligence is responsible. But how do we know how much that is? To even determine the relevant figures creates additional costs!

If they wanted the added security, they would have worn the belt.

Besides the point. The point is that the rest of us have to pay for it either way.

It's not your job (or the government's for that matter) to "save" them from themselves.

Nope. If that were the only issue, I would agree with you. My problem is the social cost.

In my opinion, the government should rarely, if ever get involved in social issues and only when there is a legidimate threat to person or property.

For me, this means they should have nothing to do with marriage. There should simply be no laws, taxes or anything else pertaining to marriage. It is a religious institution ordained by God at Creation and His Word is the only authority on the subject as far as I'm concerned.

It also means a private business owner should be able to hire/fire anyone they so desire for what ever reason they desire. (This does not apply to public companies with shareholders)

Shouldn't be involved in censorship of any kind except as it relates to Gov. actions and or companies with shareholders. Anything in the private sector should remain unregulated.

Seat belt laws, cellphone/driving laws, car seat laws etc. should be terminated. Liability laws also need serious revision or moving to "no fault" as some States have done may be appropriate.

I do believe abuses that end up causing demonstrable harm should be punished more severely as a deterent to abuse.

But how do we know how much that is? To even determine the relevant figures creates additional costs!
Also determining whether or not someone was wearing their seat belt creates additional costs.

In today's society, what happens if you hit somebody who isn't wearing a seatbelt? Are you still responsible for all of the damages? How exactly does it work?

In today's society, what happens if you hit somebody who isn't wearing a seatbelt? Are you still responsible for all of the damages? How exactly does it work?

It varies by state and locality. In general, the "seat belt defense" can be used, although it is somewhat difficult to establish.

Again, however, this requires additional legal activity where the ordinary business of insurance would not require it. Even if the defendant winds up paying less in medical expense or damages, we all have to pay for those court and lawyer fees... so we wind up paying both in higher insurance and higher taxes insofar as this is an additional pressure on the system.

Seat belt laws discourage drivers from driving without a seat belt. The fewer people who drive without a seat belt, the lower the costs on all of us will be.

I find it difficult to believe that people really think their "freedom" to live recklessly outweighs the very real costs to society.

Seriously, I would love for someone to tell me what is so great about driving without a seat belt. What about that is "free"?

Seriously, I would love for someone to tell me what is so great about driving without a seat belt. What about that is "free"?

It's your choice. You aren't forced. That is free.