NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?

When alcohol was outlawed in the United States alcoholism didn't vanish. People simply turned to a black market that filled the void. Lot's of people got screwed up by bath tub hooch and the alcohol itself and lots more got mowed down by Chicago typewriters in bloody turf wars. The same is happening today with drugs. Why? Yes drugs can screw you up, yes seatbelts can save lives. But is it really the governments place to protect people...from themselves?

Woops, speeling error. Should be Wright.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?Because if you get injured while driving most of the cost is to the society - through your care and loss of work days - instead of to you personally.

Even in case you have a medical insurance you end up costing more than paying back, in case of a serious injury.
But is it really the governments place to protect people...from themselves?It is government's place to act when the cost of people getting hurt is paid by the society - Through health care, lost tax income and social support (esp. in case of a severe disability).

The alternative would be to let people who've injured themselves by eg. driving a minor accident without wearing a seatbelt handle the injuries all by themselves.

Besides, you live in a democracy: If you wish there were no speedlimits, seat belts or drug laws found a party and do something to it. :p

Also, you risk the life of other people (in the car) if you don't wear seatbelt.

edit. Calatrava's work may be impractical but we all want some form over function every now and then. :)

Because, contrary to your belief, not wearing a seatbelt is not actually victimless, what with the 80+ kg projectile going at 80+ kph that you will become. If you hit someone, they're going to die.

Because, contrary to your belief, not wearing a seatbelt is not actually victimless, what with the 80+ kg projectile going at 80+ kph that you will become. If you hit someone, they're going to die.

And just when has this happened? I have never heard of this happening, and it seems like the chances are so remote that it can be ignored.

Anyway. Seatbelt laws are unnecessary. I'm in favor of seatbelts, but a law saying you have to wear them? No, that is unnecessary. If someone wants to be stupid and take risks, let them. Same with helmet laws.

Ever seen the imprint of a child's face in the dash of a car after a frontal accident ? I have never questioned the use of a seatbelt ever since ..... Nobody has to tell me that it is compulsory, it"s common sense.

No one else is hurt only if you have no family and no one gives a s**t about you or you don't crash into someone who has to live the rest of their lives haunted by the knowledge of being involved in your death.

Pain ain't just physical.

not wearing a seat belt, or empairing one's judgement in the privacy and safety of one's solitude in one's own little padded room at home, are voluntary risks, comparable to sky diving and mountain climbing.

voluntary risks are not the problem. NON-voluntary risks are.

HAVING to drive a car on a road with other drivers, having to live with an alcohaulic, having to breath second hand smoke, and what the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation are doing to the natural cycles of renewal, upon which the very web of life itself, and ourselves as integral parts of it, utterly depend, among many others, are NONvoluntary risks.

no one is protected by harbouring these irrational priorities which put symbolic value ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

what governments NEED to protect people from are things like the malpheasance and indiffernce to their well being of economic interests, and the tyranny of the dominance of aggressiveness, particularly that of the more gratuitous sorts of conventionality. precisely what the dominant culture blindly, arrogantly, and idioticly demonizes any government that might otherwise attempt to do so for attempting to do (ESPECIALLY if it even slightly inconveniences the rapacity of dominant economic interests).

=^^=
.../\...

Because if you get injured while driving most of the cost is to the society - through your care and loss of work days - instead of to you personally.

Even in case you have a medical insurance you end up costing more than paying back, in case of a serious injury.
It is government's place to act when the cost of people getting hurt is paid by the society - Through health care, lost tax income and social support (esp. in case of a severe disability).

The alternative would be to let people who've injured themselves by eg. driving a minor accident without wearing a seatbelt handle the injuries all by themselves.

Besides, you live in a democracy: If you wish there were no speedlimits, seat belts or drug laws found a party and do something to it. :p
Well, under Libertarianism, loosing someone's tax income wouldn't be that major, and the idiot who didn't buckle up or rolled one too many will have to pay for it himself, as health care would be private.
Of course, it wouldn't be that expensive, as the free market has been proven time and time again to drive down prices and raise quality, through competition.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?


Seatbelt laws also force the car builders to implement seatbelts in their cars. So that's ok.

Also, if you want to benefit from social security and healt system in case of a car crash, yes, you should try to minimise the risks you're taking by wearing seatbelts. Just like not locking your door will give your insurance the opportunity not to repay you in the case of a theft.
If you don't want to wear seatbelts, you also shouldn't expect free medical care or an insurance repaying you in the case you get hurt.

The fact that you would even suggest not wearing a seatbelt as being something that would even enter a persons mind as a logical thing to do shows that the Government really does need to protect people from themselves, and the foolishness of others.

Seatbelt laws also force the car builders to implement seatbelts in their cars. So that's ok.
If a car company wants to put a car out on the market without seatbelts, even without a law requiring them it will probably not sell well because most people have come to demand certain safety features while the minority understands the risk and choose the danger. Car companies started putting in airbags because customers and clients requested it and threatened to take their business elsewhere if they didn't get what they wanted.

Also, if you want to benefit from social security and healt system in case of a car crash, yes, you should try to minimise the risks you're taking by wearing seatbelts. Just like not locking your door will give your insurance the opportunity not to repay you in the case of a theft.
If you don't want to wear seatbelts, you also shouldn't expect free medical care or an insurance repaying you in the case you get hurt.
How does getting injured in a crash affect my social security status? I don't expect free medical care, I'm against free health care and think everyone should have to pay their own bills. If my insurance company won't insure me for not wearing a seatbelt then I'll find one that will.

This is what I was kinda sorta hoping for:
Social Lib./Auth.: -6.72
Not quite as socailly libertarian as you thought.

Also something that I was kinda sorta hoping for were statements like Cameroi's, that sometimes it's okay to impose your will on someone, like when you know what's good for them more than they do. But he went a step further by attacking aggressiveness. The meek have yet to inherit the Earth for a very good reason. Hesitance and submissiveness are signs of weakness and will gain you only a great deal of grief.

Seatbelt laws, like anti-drug laws, are fascist and anyone who promotes them is to.

i'm not too sure who santiago catalavera, er, my mind is a sieve for even remembering how to spell a name for two seconds, but since the poll invited comment on this a well; yes, i think the works of f.l.wright, are mostly over rated. he was, at least supposedly, a great TEACHER of architecture, and his philosophy of architecture is one i aggree with many of its principals, or at least how i perceive them, but i can't see how, in most of his work, he came any where near to actually practicing it.

mybidge and gaudi are both better examples of what i think of as architects then wright. as are several, perhapse many, who'se names i have not the slightest inkling of. for all i know, this santiago might be one of them. it's not a name i recall ever hearing, reading about, or seeing their work. but then, like i said, if i had that odds are against that i'd have remembered his name anyway.

another example of what i think of as architecture is the flying cement home page and also many of the illustrations by roger dean, the guy who painted the yes alblum covers.

the 60s and 70s were a kind of golden age for what i think of as architecture, as it was for so many things, both artistic and tecnological and scientific.

the 50s had lots of resources and before building codes became nearly universal in rural areas, a lot of people, and you didn't have to be rich to do so, did a lot of ingenuous and innovative things, but architecture with a capital a, was mostly kind of constipated, to my perception at least, until the late 60s and early 70s came along. and then all that 'post industrial' austentation in the early to mid 80s, really put the dimise to what was just starting to get going good and gain public recognition and even some degree of acceptance.

parallels here to what was happining in politics along about that time as well, though i know of no direct connection between the two, other then a general mood of knee jerk we seem to have been sinking deeper and brutally deeper into ever since.

=^^=
.../\...

The fact that you would even suggest not wearing a seatbelt as being something that would even enter a persons mind as a logical thing to do shows that the Government really does need to protect people from themselves, and the foolishness of others.
It's not that I think it's a safe thing to do, it's just a victimless crime, like drug use. I understand the risk. I choose the danger. Who are you to tell me how to live my life? What gives you the right?

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?

When alcohol was outlawed in the United States alcoholism didn't vanish. People simply turned to a black market that filled the void. Lot's of people got screwed up by bath tub hooch and the alcohol itself and lots more got mowed down by Chicago typewriters in bloody turf wars. The same is happening today with drugs. Why? Yes drugs can screw you up, yes seatbelts can save lives. But is it really the governments place to protect people...from themselves?

Woops, speeling error. Should be Wright.
Victimless crime is a myth, there is always a social cost, your forgetting that you are a member of an interdependent community, and you have a social responsibility to that community, that means abiding by that communities' laws etc.

It's not that I think it's a safe thing to do, it's just a victimless crime, like drug use. I understand the risk. I choose the danger. Who are you to tell me how to live my life? What gives you the right?

It's not a victimless crime. If you happen to be sitting in the back seat without a seatbelt on and there is a collision, it's the person in the seat in front of you who pays the price. Likewise, if you're thrown out of the window at 70mph you're going to do some damage...

Victimless crime is a myth, there is always a social cost, your forgetting that you are a member of an interdependent community, and you have a social responsibility to that community, that means abiding by that communities' laws etc.
How is society hurt by my passing? I've got enough money to pay for a burial if I die, I'd pay for my bills if I survive, I have no one depending on me for their survival or well-bling, and I'm obejcting to the laws but very specific ones. I'm objecting to laws that prohibit self-destructive behavior.

If you weren't a self-proclaimed commie you'd be a fascist. You're statement, which I can only assume reflects your beliefs, certainly is. It promotes general authoritarianism, general statism, militarism because of the cops involved, and collectivism. Maybe you should consider replacing your red wardrobe with something a little more black.

Risottia
Social Lib./Auth.: -6.72

Not quite as socailly libertarian as you thought.


Are you suggesting that advocating seat belt laws should make someone reside above the axis?

How is society hurt by my passing? I've got enough money to pay for a burial if I die, I'd pay for my bills if I survive, I have no one depending on me for their survival or well-bling, and I'm obejcting to the laws but very specific ones. I'm objecting to laws that prohibit self-destructive behavior.

Well done you, I suppose. Though can the same be said for everyone else? Because, if you can do that you are no means representive of the general man on the street.

Maybe you should consider replacing your red wardrobe with something a little more black.

AP is no anarchist. :)

How is society hurt by my passing? I've got enough money to pay for a burial if I die, I'd pay for my bills if I survive, I have no one depending on me for their survival or well-bling, and I'm obejcting to the laws but very specific ones. I'm objecting to laws that prohibit self-destructive behavior.


For how long you've paid your taxes? You actually owe the government for quite some time. The infrastructure, the education etc.

How is society hurt by my passing? I've got enough money to pay for a burial if I die, I'd pay for my bills if I survive, I have no one depending on me for their survival or well-bling, and I'm obejcting to the laws but very specific ones. I'm objecting to laws that prohibit self-destructive behavior.

If you weren't a self-proclaimed commie you'd be a fascist. You're statement, which I can only assume reflects your beliefs, certainly is. It promotes general authoritarianism, general statism, militarism because of the cops involved, and collectivism. Maybe you should consider replacing your red wardrobe with something a little more black.
Car crashes cause danger to other members of the community, and can cause damage to public property, your also encouraging a lax approach to public safety. Fact is, your not a private citizen, no one is is, you rely on the greater community for your needs in social exchange.

For how long you've paid your taxes? You actually owe the government for quite some time. The infrastructure, the education etc.

Exactly, the social contract.

What gives you the right to force me to spend my tax dollars scrapping and cleaning up your dumb ass off the asphalt and you get smeared from a crash?

Jesh, it takes, what, two WHOLE seconds to actually buckle up? Why is it even an issue?

And just when has this happened? I have never heard of this happening, and it seems like the chances are so remote that it can be ignored.

Anyway. Seatbelt laws are unnecessary. I'm in favor of seatbelts, but a law saying you have to wear them? No, that is unnecessary. If someone wants to be stupid and take risks, let them. Same with helmet laws.
There was an ad campaign here encouraging people to wear seatbelts. The gist of it was that if you don't have a seatbelt on in a crash you're going to go bouncing around the car and fuck up everyone else in it with you. So yeah, not victimless.
How is society hurt by my passing? I've got enough money to pay for a burial if I die, I'd pay for my bills if I survive, I have no one depending on me for their survival or well-bling, and I'm obejcting to the laws but very specific ones. I'm objecting to laws that prohibit self-destructive behavior.
Because when you die you stop paying taxes.

And just when has this happened? I have never heard of this happening, and it seems like the chances are so remote that it can be ignored.

Anyway. Seatbelt laws are unnecessary. I'm in favor of seatbelts, but a law saying you have to wear them? No, that is unnecessary. If someone wants to be stupid and take risks, let them. Same with helmet laws.

You've never heard of it happening? Shit it happens all the time. If you don't buckle up in the rear seat, then the person in front of you is in trouble.

If you as the father in a car full of your kids don't put your seatbelt on what are the chances that your kids wont do it either? Seatbelt laws, like all laws take into consideration many aspects, because you have not taken into account the same, does not make it a bad law.

If a car company wants to put a car out on the market without seatbelts, even without a law requiring them it will probably not sell well because most people have come to demand certain safety features while the minority understands the risk and choose the danger. Car companies started putting in airbags because customers and clients requested it and threatened to take their business elsewhere if they didn't get what they wanted.


Maybe, in the US. Here in Europe, the history is quite different: Car makers started to place seatbelts on ALL models, not just the more expensive ones, only when seatbelt laws were enacted.
The myth of the freedom of choice in a free market is somewhat ruined by the fact that you also have to pay for what you want/need.
Exemplification: Let's say you're a car-maker producing two models. One is luxury sedan, the other one is a small, cheap utility car. The target of the sedan is the upper mid-class, the target of the utility car is the lower class.
You can sell the sedan with seatbelts and airbags for 31000 € or without for 30000 €. The same goes for the utility car: 6000 € with seatbelts and airbags or without for 5000 €. Let's say that the upper mid-class target earns about 10000 €/month, and the lower class target 1000 €/month.
The upper mid-class may choose to spend 1/10 of his monthly income for greater safety. The lower class may choose to spend 1/1 of his monthly income for greater safety. Of course, most upper mid-classers will choose the seatbelts and airbags, while most lower-classers will choose to spend less.
There goes freedom of choice. So, seatbelt laws are good.
By the way, yes, sometimes even lower-classers NEED a car, like when living in a suburb that's poorly served by public transportation, and having to go to work in another poorly served area.


How does getting injured in a crash affect my social security status? I don't expect free medical care, I'm against free health care and think everyone should have to pay their own bills. If my insurance company won't insure me for not wearing a seatbelt then I'll find one that will.

You get paralysed in a car crash and unable to work, because you refused to wear seatbelts. THIS will affect your social security status - no more income, no pension, baby. Else, the State (that is, all taxpayers) will have to pay to keep you alive even if you cannot work. Oh, how authoritarian is this, I guess... not.


This is what I was kinda sorta hoping for:

Not quite as socailly libertarian as you thought.

Seatbelt laws, like anti-drug laws, are fascist and anyone who promotes them is to.

If being about as socially libertarian (and not socailly) libertarian as Gandhi and Mandela (check on the Political Compass table, please) makes me a "fascist" too (and not to), well, I guess it depends on your own, very subjective, definition of "fascist" and "libertarian".

Also, your lack of knowledge of the English language manages to diminish somewhat the value of the labels you try to attach to my person and opinion. By the way, labelling someone as "fascist" because he doesn't share your own opinion about seatbelts is a bit of authoritarianism, isn't it?

As New Hebitia said, it's not victimless if you're sitting in the back seat.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts?Why should my insurance rates go up just because somebody doesn't want to wear a seatbelt? After all, flying through the windshield is probably going to be more injurious to a person than not flying through the windshield.

It's not that I think it's a safe thing to do, it's just a victimless crime, like drug use. I understand the risk. I choose the danger. Who are you to tell me how to live my life? What gives you the right?

So you're just going to ignore the posts that point out how it's not a victimless crime?

not wearing a seatbelt is idiotic. some people are idiotic. some people wouldn't wear them if they had the choice. however i'm not vindictive and don't want those 'stupid people' to suffer for their idiocy. its safer for them - and possibly others - to wear seatbelts. hence i see absolutely no harm in making this mandatory, and to even question it seems odd to me.

Because, contrary to your belief, not wearing a seatbelt is not actually victimless, what with the 80+ kg projectile going at 80+ kph that you will become.

I'm no longer going to wear my seatbelt just for the off chance someone takes a picture of the car accident the second I go through the windshield doing a superman pose. :D

So you're just going to ignore the posts that point out how it's not a victimless crime?

It IS a victimless crime. I live by myself for the vast majority of time, drive by myself,and im responsible for noones well being but my own. I dont even HAVE insurance yet i have sufficient money to be retired for the rest of my life and cover any medical bills i may incur. By not wearing a seatbelt im not incurring ONE IOTA of extra obligation to society.
Seatbelts do not reduce or limit car crashes in any way. Auto accidents are going to happen regardless of the status of your seatbelt buckle. I have yet to see a single post that justifies making me wear a seatbelt if i dont want to as long as im in no way negativly impacting society.

It IS a victimless crime. I live by myself for the vast majority of time, drive by myself,and im responsible for noones well being but my own. I dont even HAVE insurance yet i have sufficient money to be retired for the rest of my life and cover any medical bills i may incur. By not wearing a seatbelt im not incurring ONE IOTA of extra obligation to society.
Seatbelts do not reduce or limit car crashes in any way. Auto accidents are going to happen regardless of the status of your seatbelt buckle. I have yet to see a single post that justifies making me wear a seatbelt if i dont want to as long as im in no way negativly impacting society.

Heh you just have not read the thread at all huh.

If you crash and and as a result of not wearing a seatbelt obtain extensive injurys, you place a higher burden on the state for your converlesance, and thus a higher burden on sociaty,

It IS a victimless crime. I live by myself for the vast majority of time, drive by myself,and im responsible for noones well being but my own. I dont even HAVE insurance yet i have sufficient money to be retired for the rest of my life and cover any medical bills i may incur. By not wearing a seatbelt im not incurring ONE IOTA of extra obligation to society.
Seatbelts do not reduce or limit car crashes in any way. Auto accidents are going to happen regardless of the status of your seatbelt buckle. I have yet to see a single post that justifies making me wear a seatbelt if i dont want to as long as im in no way negativly impacting society.

You become a projectile...

Don't believe anyone? Go try it, I'll get my camera.

Everyone is a citizen of the polity - the state - you die, you stop paying taxes, thus the community suffers to whatever degree.

Essentially you don't want to wear a seatbelt because you don't want to...

There's a very rational argument. It's much more effective while kicking and screaming, but online it just lacks that passion.

If my insurance company won't insure me for not wearing a seatbelt then I'll find one that will.


Here's where reality and your imagination part ways. Insurance companies make money by gambling you WON'T have to collect. That's why low risk insurer's have relatively low premium. But if you're a regular hard drug abuser, chronic drinker, and have a penchant for driving fast cars under influence, no insurance company will touch you unless you've got gobs of money to pay on premium.

Not wanting to wear a seatbelt at all?

That's going to hit you in the pocket real hard.


Seatbelt laws, like anti-drug laws, are fascist and anyone who promotes them is to.

Ahh, the old fashioned "If you don't support my stance you're a fascist!" argument.

How dull and unimaginative.

It IS a victimless crime. I live by myself for the vast majority of time, drive by myself,and im responsible for noones well being but my own. I dont even HAVE insurance yet i have sufficient money to be retired for the rest of my life and cover any medical bills i may incur. By not wearing a seatbelt im not incurring ONE IOTA of extra obligation to society.
Seatbelts do not reduce or limit car crashes in any way. Auto accidents are going to happen regardless of the status of your seatbelt buckle. I have yet to see a single post that justifies making me wear a seatbelt if i dont want to as long as im in no way negativly impacting society.

As people have said, if you have a head-on collision without a seatbelt on, you get to test out the patented RDES - rapid driver ejection system - and become a fast-moving projectile. Perhaps it could be better explained like so:

"WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SPLAT!"

It's like the old suicide debate.

'It's my choice to take my life, it doesn't affect anyone else'

Answer:

'Do you have a family?'
'Do you have a job?'
'Do you pay taxes?'

As people have said, if you have a head-on collision without a seatbelt on, you get to test out the patented RDES - rapid driver ejection system - and become a fast-moving projectile. Perhaps it could be better explained like so:

"WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SPLAT!"

Sorry i call BS. Please cite the legions of dead killed from human projectiles pre-seatbelt laws. Until you can do that in any reasonable numbers to justify limiting human liberty then once again i call BS.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts?
Because it saves a great many lives, and when everyone's paying taxes, then the state is happy, as are those making seatbelts.
Or laws prohibiting drug use?
Drugs can really fuck people up, a lot, and not just the people taking them. Some cheeky bastard bit me when they were stoned, which hurt a fair bit, so I was the victim, too.
Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity?
No such thing.
I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?
Because it costs the government money to treat you in hospital, and also causes anguish in the people who see you die?
When alcohol was outlawed in the United States alcoholism didn't vanish. People simply turned to a black market that filled the void. Lot's of people got screwed up by bath tub hooch and the alcohol itself and lots more got mowed down by Chicago typewriters in bloody turf wars.
That's because drinking alcohol is a part of mainstream western culture, whereas taking drugs really isn't. If you, say, made tea illegal in the UK, or guns illegal in the US, you'd have a huge backlash from the general public.

Banning illegal drugs doesn't offend even nearly the same amount of people, so you can do it and get away with it.
The same is happening today with drugs.
Not to the beginnings of the same extent.
Why? Yes drugs can screw you up, yes seatbelts can save lives.
There you go, you answered your own question.
But is it really the governments place to protect people...from themselves?
Yes, to an extent.

Sorry i call BS. Please cite the legions of dead killed from human projectiles pre-seatbelt laws. Until you can do that in any reasonable numbers to justify limiting human liberty then once again i call BS.
Yes but if I see you flying out of a car and splatting your brain all over the pavement, I deserve the liberty not to have to be mentally scared by that for the rest of my life.

Also, while on public property (roads) you better act like a good citizen or the police taze you.

Seatbelt laws, like anti-drug laws, are fascist and anyone who promotes them is to.
I like fascism, in certain circumstances. All that fascism is is basically telling people what to do for their own good. Seatbelts and anti-drug laws are perfectly sensible.

Everyone is a citizen of the polity - the state - you die, you stop paying taxes, thus the community suffers to whatever degree.

Just a FYI , just because you die doesnt mean you stop paying taxes nor does it mean the community nessesarily suffers. In fact due to Estate taxes, your death may BENEFIT your community moreso then if you were actually alive.

In another example, say you buy 1 share of Superstock X, and its dividend pays you 100k a year and you live on this. Does your death affect the communitys tax base? Your heir of Superstock X will continue to pay the exact same tax to the state and recieve the same benefits and there is no net loss.

Heh you just have not read the thread at all huh.

If you crash and and as a result of not wearing a seatbelt obtain extensive injurys, you place a higher burden on the state for your converlesance, and thus a higher burden on sociaty,

Thread?? Its clear you didnt even read my POST. I made it clear i dont have insurance but that i have the funds to pay for any and all injuries that i could receive in a car crash. So explain exactly what burden at ALL that ive placed on the State and or society?

Just a FYI , just because you die doesnt mean you stop paying taxes nor does it mean the community nessesarily suffers. In fact due to Estate taxes, your death may BENEFIT your community moreso then if you were actually alive.

In another example, say you buy 1 share of Superstock X, and its dividend pays you 100k a year and you live on this. Does your death affect the communitys tax base? Your heir of Superstock X will continue to pay the exact same tax to the state and recieve the same benefits and there is no net loss.

Well then what I guess I meant was that the opportunity cost for what this man may have done for this community if he lived. Also it's hard to put a social value on say compulsory national service or the like.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?

When alcohol was outlawed in the United States alcoholism didn't vanish. People simply turned to a black market that filled the void. Lot's of people got screwed up by bath tub hooch and the alcohol itself and lots more got mowed down by Chicago typewriters in bloody turf wars. The same is happening today with drugs. Why? Yes drugs can screw you up, yes seatbelts can save lives. But is it really the governments place to protect people...from themselves?

Woops, speeling error. Should be Wright.

Dude, if you want to kill yourself just buy a gun, put it to your temple, and pull the trigger. Stop bitching that the ebil government is violating your right to be a complete moron.

Thread?? Its clear you didnt even read my POST. I made it clear i dont have insurance but that i have the funds to pay for any and all injuries that i could receive in a car crash. So explain exactly what burden at ALL that ive placed on the State and or society?
Really? You have no auto insurance? How are you still able to drive?

BTW, did you miss the last, oh, 20 years of stats about how seatbelts save lives?

Sorry i call BS. Please cite the legions of dead killed from human projectiles pre-seatbelt laws. Until you can do that in any reasonable numbers to justify limiting human liberty then once again i call BS.

Unsurprisingly, human projectile statistics aren't all that easy to find! Inside of the car, articles such as this one (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/12/1793) are much easier to find. But it's basic physics - if both cars are involved in a head-on collision, and you are unrestrained, you will go through the windscreen, through their windscreen, and into them.

The simple fact is, it only takes one to become 'too many'.

Really? You have no auto insurance? How are you still able to drive?

BTW, did you miss the last, oh, 20 years of stats about how seatbelts save lives?

i have no health insurance. My auto insurance does not cover my own medical bills afaik.

And how many lives seatbelts have saved is completly irrelevant in comparison to wanting to have the right of choice and self determination.

Mandatory exercise would save WAY more lives then seatbelts. You want a sheriff knocking at your door at 6am with a shotgun to get you started?

Unsurprisingly, human projectile statistics aren't all that easy to find! Inside of the car, articles such as this one (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/170/12/1793) are much easier to find. But it's basic physics - if both cars are involved in a head-on collision, and you are unrestrained, you will go through the windscreen, through their windscreen, and into them.

The simple fact is, it only takes one to become 'too many'.

I see, so your willing to take away the most basic human right to choose to solve a problem that, you well really cant actually find or even prove that actually exists, but golly it MUST be true cause it sounds true right?

Dude, if you want to kill yourself just buy a gun, put it to your temple, and pull the trigger. Stop bitching that the ebil government is violating your right to be a complete moron.

No, a suicide like that would cause too much attention, no doubt the media would be running stories within days about our communities' lost innocence, and it would negatively affect public morale. Plus the money for the inc to print his obituary. The price is just too high.

morale. Plus the money for the inc to print his obituary..

Nah. Obits are paid by the families. The family will pay for it by the proceeds from your estate. So you STILL end up paying for it. Checkmate. ;)

It IS a victimless crime.
Tell that to the person your dead/dying body crashes into

Thread?? Its clear you didnt even read my POST. I made it clear i dont have insurance but that i have the funds to pay for any and all injuries that i could receive in a car crash. So explain exactly what burden at ALL that ive placed on the State and or society?

You are one person out of millions who drive. What you do is irrelevant.

I see, so your willing to take away the most basic human right
I wans't aware that driving without a seatbelt was a basic human right. Wonder why the UN left that one out.
to choose to solve a problem that, you well really cant actually find or even prove that actually exists, but golly it MUST be true cause it sounds true right?

So that whole article about a passenger without a seatbelt becoming an in car projectile and injuring the other people in the car, that just didn't connect with anything in your brain at all? You don't see that as any kind of problem?

I seriously doubt that.

What part do you seriously doubt? That families pay for the obits in newspapers or that people will thier Estates to thier families?

Nah. Obits are paid by the families. The family will pay for it by the proceeds from your estate. So you STILL end up paying for it. Checkmate. ;)

I seriously doubt that.

I have no problem with laws requiring that children be placed in proper child seats and/or buckled in with a seatbelt.

I have no problem with laws requiring that seatbelts be implemented in all cars.

I'm iffy on laws requiring adults to wear seatbelts. I think someone is acting like an idiot if they don't, and I won't drive my car without everyone in the car being buckled in, but that is *my* choice to make as a competent adult.

I think most drug laws should be done away with. There are some drugs that, if abused, can become a problem to all of us. There are others that are a problem only for the user. I don't think the latter should be illegal, although I do think any activity taken while under the influence of drugs that endangers or harms others should be punished harshly.

So that whole article about a passenger without a seatbelt becoming an in car projectile and injuring the other people in the car, that just didn't connect with anything in your brain at all? You don't see that as any kind of problem?

Since the odds of a meteor landing on your head are the virtually the same as a human flying at you from one car to another then no i dont see this as any kind of problem. I also said that for the vast majority of the time i drive in my car alone.

Because all cars only have front seats, isn't that right Intestinal Fluids?

I agree with Dem, with the addition of seatbelts being mandatory in rear seats.

Since the odds of a meteor landing on your head are the virtually the same as a human flying at you from one car to another then no i dont see this as any kind of problem.
What's much more likely is the person in the back seat who isn't wearing a seatbelt flying forwards when the car stops suddenly. Like it would in a head on collision. I also said that for the vast majority of the time i drive in my car alone.

And I also said that you are one person out of millions, so what you do is irrelevant. If for some reason I was found to be especially resistent to radiation, would it make sense to do away with any laws regarding the moving and distribution of radioactive materials?

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?
Wow, that's like asking "Why is the sky blue?" and following it up with "Are you still beating your wife?" Two completely unrelated issues.

And I also said that you are one person out of millions, so what you do is irrelevant. If for some reason I was found to be especially resistent to radiation, would it make sense to do away with any laws regarding the moving and distribution of radioactive materials?

Thanks for telling me my rights dont count. So what if im one of thousands in the same situation? What if im one of a hundred thousand in the same situation? Please tell me at what point im allowed my rights, im a little confused as to when im allowed to count. And thats a horrible analogy. Radiation will kill tens of thousands all against thier will or choice. Choosing not to wear a seatbelt in my situation does none of those things.

It IS a victimless crime. I live by myself for the vast majority of time, drive by myself,and im responsible for noones well being but my own. I dont even HAVE insurance yet i have sufficient money to be retired for the rest of my life and cover any medical bills i may incur. By not wearing a seatbelt im not incurring ONE IOTA of extra obligation to society.
Seatbelts do not reduce or limit car crashes in any way. Auto accidents are going to happen regardless of the status of your seatbelt buckle. I have yet to see a single post that justifies making me wear a seatbelt if i dont want to as long as im in no way negativly impacting society.

Thread?? Its clear you didnt even read my POST. I made it clear i dont have insurance but that i have the funds to pay for any and all injuries that i could receive in a car crash. So explain exactly what burden at ALL that ive placed on the State and or society?

You are in a car crash, and end up in a coma.
You have no health insurance.
Who pays for your hospital treatment?

No-one has claimed that seatbelts affect the incidence of crashes. They have stated that seatbelts significantly increase the survival rate of said crashes. These are two entirely separate points, with no causal connection.

Your argument is oversimplistic and petulant.

It's not that I think it's a safe thing to do, it's just a victimless crime, like drug use. I understand the risk. I choose the danger. Who are you to tell me how to live my life? What gives you the right?

If you think drug use is a victimless crime.......you might not have the capacity to think through issues and probably shouldn't be driving anyway.

Thanks for telling me my rights dont count. So what if im one of thousands in the same situation? What if im one of a hundred thousand in the same situation? Please tell me at what point im allowed my rights, im a little confused as to when im allowed to count. And thats a horrible analogy. Radiation will kill tens of thousands all against thier will or choice. Choosing not to wear a seatbelt in my situation does none of those things.
Ok, Cpt Anti-government, if you have to insist on being an idiot about seatbelts, get a motorcycle. There you go, no seatbelts on motorcycles and the chance of you being thrown the fuck off your vehicle in a crach is increased 100%!

You are in a car crash, and end up in a coma.
You have no health insurance.
Who pays for your hospital treatment?

No-one has claimed that seatbelts affect the incidence of crashes. They have stated that seatbelts significantly increase the survival rate of said crashes. These are two entirely separate points, with no causal connection.

Your argument is oversimplistic and petulant.

Your the simplistic one, as your assuming that no health insurance = not being able to afford being in a coma. I am a 40 yr old healthy male and estimate that by not being covered by health insurance ive saved almost $100,000 in the last 20 years. When i get older that calculation may or may not change but for now i consider it a risk worth taking and a rational cost saving measure. I own property that is not easily liquidated but can be should i need large amounts of money for long term health care such as a coma. My bases are covered my needs are met and i have no obligation to anyone anyway anyhow.. So tell me again why the State is telling me i have to wear a seatbelt?

Thread?? Its clear you didnt even read my POST. I made it clear i dont have insurance but that i have the funds to pay for any and all injuries that i could receive in a car crash. So explain exactly what burden at ALL that ive placed on the State and or society?

So you are wealthy enough never to have to work again, or pay for a full time carer? As a disabled person would the state pay for your free travel, would you get usage out of wheel chair access ramps, already paid for by the state?

You have no freinds to greive your death? The revanues created by whatrever the hell you hobbies are would disappear from where ever the hell you spend it is.

Really though if you really can't see that each and every action you perform does impact directly or indirectly on others then please, carry on living in your fanatasy world.

What part do you seriously doubt? That families pay for the obits in newspapers or that people will thier Estates to thier families?

That families pay for obits.

So you are wealthy enough never to have to work again, or pay for a full time carer?.

Yup. Retired at 31. Just got a seatbelt ticket a week ago and im still pissed about it.

That families pay for obits.

Unless your a famous person and its a news item, Obits in the US at least are written and paid for by the family, much in the same way you pay for a classified ad. They are real expensive too. I think when my sister passed away , her obit in the paper was like $900.

Yup. Retired at 31. Just got a seatbelt ticket a week ago and im still pissed about it.

I have a friend who got into a head on collision, wasn't wearing his seat belt, flew through the windshield and ripped off his penis. It costs him about $3,500 a day just in medication, medical supplies, and nursing help to live. Do you have that much money?

*I am totally not kidding about it ripping off his penis, they couldn't re-attach it either so he has kinda like an ostomy bag in it's place.

I have a friend who got into a head on collision, wasn't wearing his seat belt, flew through the windshield and ripped off his penis. It costs him about $3,500 a day just in medication, medical supplies, and nursing help to live. Do you have that much money?

*I am totally not kidding about it ripping off his penis, they couldn't re-attach it either so he has kinda like an ostomy bag in it's place.

:eek: That sounds like the worst thing that could ever happen to me

Thanks for telling me my rights dont count.
Thanks for reading words I didn't write. The fact that you drive alone doesn't matter, since you are only one person out of millions of drivers.
So what if im one of thousands in the same situation? What if im one of a hundred thousand in the same situation?
Are you? All you've told us is that you drive alone.
Please tell me at what point im allowed my rights, im a little confused as to when im allowed to count.
When you can convince your government to rewrite the seatbelt laws to make exceptions for people who drive alone. Good luck with that.
And thats a horrible analogy. Radiation will kill tens of thousands all against thier will or choice. Choosing not to wear a seatbelt in my situation does none of those things.
The scale is not important. By not wearing a seatbelt in a car you're putting everyone else in the car at risk. By transporting radioactive materials around with no safety measures, you're putting the people around you at risk.
Your the simplistic one, as your assuming that no health insurance = not being able to afford being in a coma. I am a 40 yr old healthy male and estimate that by not being covered by health insurance ive saved almost $100,000 in the last 20 years. When i get older that calculation may or may not change but for now i consider it a risk worth taking and a rational cost saving measure. I own property that is not easily liquidated but can be should i need large amounts of money for long term health care such as a coma. My bases are covered my needs are met and i have no obligation to anyone anyway anyhow.. So tell me again why the State is telling me i have to wear a seatbelt?
Incidentally, if you're in a coma then who is going to liquidise your assets and all that?

:eek: That sounds like the worst thing that could ever happen to me

he can't do much, just sit. He is in horrible pain and is stuck basically sitting in his chair forever, he had really extensive injuries, lost use of his legs, and has brain damage, but the penis injury is the one that he complains about most often.

but the penis injury is the one that he complains about most often.

I don't blame him one bit.

And I thought I had a bad day when I injured there

I don't blame him one bit.

And I thought I had a bad day when I injured there

he is single which is what pisses him off most, because he feels like he will never get a girl. Anyway, on topic.

I think there should be some laws because people are too stupid to take care of themselves, I don't have a major issue with seatbelt laws, but I guess I don't understand the appeal of rebelling just to be rebelling.

I can understand the bitching about helmet laws, and I don't know where I stand on that, so a hypocrite am I.

Incidentally, if you're in a coma then who is going to liquidise your assets and all that?

The legal body of law regarding estates of people who are incapacitated are well established.

The legal body of law regarding estates of people who are incapacitated are well established.

Fair enough.

Victimless crime. Just like drug laws, assisted suicide laws, prostitution laws, and abortion laws, if there is no non-consensual taxpaying victim, it is not the realm of the government.

If you want to wear a seatbelt, STOP LOBBYING AND WEAR IT, DAMMIT!

I see, so your willing to take away the most basic human right to choose to solve a problem that, you well really cant actually find or even prove that actually exists, but golly it MUST be true cause it sounds true right?

I wasn't aware that it was a basic human right to choose not to wear a seatbelt? Could you please find me the legislation which states that it is a basic human right to choose not to wear a seatbelt?

I personally have heard of instances such as this before, but can't find a specific article to satisfy you. But, have you really heard of a law like that?

Victimless crime.
I guess you haven't read the thread either. There's a lot of that going around.
If you want to wear a seatbelt, STOP LOBBYING AND WEAR IT, DAMMIT!

Why would people in favour of already existing laws be lobbying anyone?

If you want to break the law and be stupid, go ahead but be prepared to pay the fine without whining. If you think it is an unjust law you had better come up with far better arguments than I have seen so far on this thread.

Your the simplistic one, as your assuming that no health insurance = not being able to afford being in a coma. I am a 40 yr old healthy male and estimate that by not being covered by health insurance ive saved almost $100,000 in the last 20 years. When i get older that calculation may or may not change but for now i consider it a risk worth taking and a rational cost saving measure. I own property that is not easily liquidated but can be should i need large amounts of money for long term health care such as a coma. My bases are covered my needs are met and i have no obligation to anyone anyway anyhow.. So tell me again why the State is telling me i have to wear a seatbelt?

Incidentally, if you're in a coma then who is going to liquidise your assets and all that?

What Ifreann said.
And you're 40, and can't even spell "you're". Or "I've". Or use commas. Clearly an independent intellect.

To break it down for you:
If you're independent and unattached, who is going to deal with the legal requirements to liquidate your assets while you're still alive but comatose?

The answer is: the State.

It's very simple: in this circumstance, you are NOT independent - you need a legal representative able and willing to take authority of your assets, and you need the State to cover your expenses while the lengthy legal wrangling occurs. You're still creating a burden, and requiring the input and effort of others to maintain you while you're incapable of communicating your wishes.

Would you refuse to wear safety gear when riding a rollercoaster or a ferris wheel because "it's your choice" whether to fall from the machine or be restrained in your seat while subjected to forces beyond your control?

You've still failed to address "petulant" btw...

To break it down for you:
If you're independent and unattached, who is going to deal with the legal requirements to liquidate your assets while you're still alive but comatose?

The answer is: the State.

Actually I figured they'd just pay for any legal costs out of his money.

Yup. Retired at 31. Just got a seatbelt ticket a week ago and im still pissed about it.

Ahhh that expalins it, and (many thanks to you Smunkee) the word used petulant, seems exactly the right one to describe your current stance.

You broke a law, you didn't like getting caught and instead of acting like the 40 year old you claim to be you act like a typical petulant teenager.

You did not answer all of the questions I put to you though, Umm I wonder why?:D

Actually I figured they'd just pay for any legal costs out of his money.

"They" still have to get legal access to his money in the first place.

Seat belt laws are a way for cops to get away with writing extra tickets under the guise of public safety. Forcing grown adults to wear seat belts is absurd.

That's not to say that people shouldn't wear seat belts when they're grown adults. But no one should be forcing them to, especially not some jerkoff cop who just wants to make a quick buck for himself and his local PD. The American public is gouged enough these days, what with ATM fees, high prices for shitty products, and surprise price hikes, that it's about damn time to give people a break.

That said, the rules should be different for anyone under the age of 18. Those people should be required to wear seat belts, and if they don't, either they or their parents/guardians/the car's driver should be fined. Heavily, in some instances - any parent who doesn't buckle up a fucking 3-year-old should go to jail on the spot, but if they buckle in the 3-year-old and don't buckle in themselves, the cops need to take a chill pill. Honestly, who does someone hurt besides himself with that?

Seat belt laws are a way for cops to get away with writing extra tickets under the guise of public safety. Forcing grown adults to wear seat belts is absurd.

That's not to say that people shouldn't wear seat belts when they're grown adults. But no one should be forcing them to, especially not some jerkoff cop who just wants to make a quick buck for himself and his local PD. The American public is gouged enough these days, what with ATM fees, high prices for shitty products, and surprise price hikes, that it's about damn time to give people a break.

That said, the rules should be different for anyone under the age of 18. Those people should be required to wear seat belts, and if they don't, either they or their parents/guardians/the car's driver should be fined. Heavily, in some instances - any parent who doesn't buckle up a fucking 3-year-old should go to jail on the spot, but if they buckle in the 3-year-old and don't buckle in themselves, the cops need to take a chill pill. Honestly, who does someone hurt besides himself with that?

Why exactly should adults be allowed to put other people at risk? Oh, you mean you haven't read the thread and have missed ut on all the posts pointing out how not wearing a seatbelt isn't a victimless crime? Don't worry, you're not the only one.

Ahhh that expalins it, and (many thanks to you Smunkee) the word used petulant, seems exactly the right one to describe your current stance.

Hoy!

Victimless crime. Just like drug laws, assisted suicide laws, prostitution laws, and abortion laws, if there is no non-consensual taxpaying victim, it is not the realm of the government.


Oh. I see. So, killing a baby - since a baby doesn't pay taxes, as he has no income or property - isn't the realm of the government.

Get a grip on reality. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt - since they're mandatory, I think - start lobbying back, but with sound arguments.

And just when has this happened? I have never heard of this happening, and it seems like the chances are so remote that it can be ignored.

Anyway. Seatbelt laws are unnecessary. I'm in favor of seatbelts, but a law saying you have to wear them? No, that is unnecessary. If someone wants to be stupid and take risks, let them. Same with helmet laws.

Why would you be in favor of seatbelts? That's technology, right there.

Hoy!

Sorry sorry Yaltabaoth, many thanks to you. Smunkee ahh not so much!;)

Sorry sorry Yaltabaoth, many thanks to you. Smunkee ahh not so much!;)

Thankew. :)

"Victimless crime" is a phrase that annoys me, because it gets people on a tangent about identifying who is hurt by which behaviors.

Far as I'm concerned, it doesn't fucking matter if society is "hurt" by the fact that I like to have a beer at times. It doesn't matter if society is "hurt" by me smoking a joint or snorting a line, either. My right to choose what happens to my body is far more important than preventing such "hurts."

After all, me getting preggers would also "hurt" society, in terms of lost work hours and productivity from me.

Society also loses productivity when I choose to work only 5 days per week. I could work more, after all. Society could get more out of me.

Society is "hurt" by the fact that I spend time having sex instead of working for the betterment of society 24/7.

Boo hoo, poor society.

Far as I'm concerned, nobody is entitled to my body or my efforts. As a member of society I feel I am obligated to not get in the way and to pay for what I use. Beyond that, society is entitled to exactly zero from me.

This means that no, in fact, I'm not "hurting" anybody or anything by making personal choices about what I ingest or how I spend my free time. Since society isn't entitled to my body or my time, I'm not taking anything from society by claiming ownership of them.

Short version: I'm not public property.

It's not that I think it's a safe thing to do, it's just a victimless crime, like drug use. I understand the risk. I choose the danger. Who are you to tell me how to live my life? What gives you the right?Neither of them are victimless crimes.

There are monetary costs in case of negligence and there are also safety issues above the risk taker (esp. in case of drugs). Not forgetting the victim's friends and family.

"Victimless crime" is a phrase that annoys me, because it gets people on a tangent about identifying who is hurt by which behaviors.

Far as I'm concerned, it doesn't fucking matter if society is "hurt" by the fact that I like to have a beer at times. It doesn't matter if society is "hurt" by me smoking a joint or snorting a line, either. My right to choose what happens to my body is far more important than preventing such "hurts."

After all, me getting preggers would also "hurt" society, in terms of lost work hours and productivity from me.

Society also loses productivity when I choose to work only 5 days per week. I could work more, after all. Society could get more out of me.

Society is "hurt" by the fact that I spend time having sex instead of working for the betterment of society 24/7.

Boo hoo, poor society.

Far as I'm concerned, nobody is entitled to my body or my efforts. As a member of society I feel I am obligated to not get in the way and to pay for what I use. Beyond that, society is entitled to exactly zero from me.

This means that no, in fact, I'm not "hurting" anybody or anything by making personal choices about what I ingest or how I spend my free time. Since society isn't entitled to my body or my time, I'm not taking anything from society by claiming ownership of them.

Short version: I'm not public property.

But you would still agree that by not wearing a seatbelt you can cause harm to other people involved in any accident that you may have?

I think the way to go is to handle it like home security. Yes, you should be concerned at least in a basic sense about home security for your own safety. No it isn't legall enforced that you are. However, if you do get robbed, you will find to your dismay that your insurance agency will not be too co-operative at all if you didn't lock your front door.

If you get caught in a car accident without a seatbelt, I think it is fair for your medical insurance to refuse to pay your now-inflated medical bill. Just a subtle encouragement for you as you get in the car "If I don't put it on, I could land myself, and anyone else in the car with me, and possibly people outside the car in a world of shit".

Fixed.

I think the way to go is to handle it like home security. Yes, you should be concerned at least in a basic sense about home security for your own safety. No it isn't legall enforced that you are. However, if you do get robbed, you will find to your dismay that your insurance agency will not be too co-operative at all if you didn't lock your front door.

If you get caught in a car accident without a seatbelt, I think it is fair for your medical insurance to refuse to pay your now-inflated medical bill. Just a subtle encouragement for you as you get in the car "If I don't put it on, I could land myself in a world of shit".

If you get caught in a car accident without a seatbelt, I think it is fair for your medical insurance to refuse to pay your now-inflated medical bill. Just a subtle encouragement for you as you get in the car "If I don't put it on, I could land myself in a world of shit".

And what if you're seriously injured and can't afford to pay? Should the medical staff simply refuse to treat you and let you die in your car?

That being said, I have been completely brinwashed from birth by Australian Government seatbelt campigning. The notion of riding in a car without my seatbelt on is unthinkable. I only discovered this recently when I went to asia, much to the amusement of everyone else "Aiyo guailo! Msai la seatbelt you- in the back seat! AHhahahaha. Hoi oi Seatbelt la jor HAHAHAAHAH". I feel deeply uncomfortable without one on (The cars in Asia often don't even put them in the back seat at all).

not wearing a seat belt, or empairing one's judgement in the privacy and safety of one's solitude in one's own little padded room at home, are voluntary risks, comparable to sky diving and mountain climbing.

voluntary risks are not the problem. NON-voluntary risks are.

HAVING to drive a car on a road with other drivers, having to live with an alcohaulic, having to breath second hand smoke, and what the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation are doing to the natural cycles of renewal, upon which the very web of life itself, and ourselves as integral parts of it, utterly depend, among many others, are NONvoluntary risks.

That sentence caused physical pain. Periods, and complete thoughts separated by them, are not the enemy.

no one is protected by harbouring these irrational priorities which put symbolic value ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

what governments NEED to protect people from are things like the malpheasance and indiffernce to their well being of economic interests, and the tyranny of the dominance of aggressiveness, particularly that of the more gratuitous sorts of conventionality.

I think I speak for all of NSG when I say: "what?" Seriously, what are you trying to say in that "par-entence"...or is it a "sentegraph"?

precisely what the dominant culture blindly, arrogantly, and idioticly demonizes any government that might otherwise attempt to do so for attempting to do (ESPECIALLY if it even slightly inconveniences the rapacity of dominant economic interests).

=^^=
.../\...

Please -- put down the thesaurus until you've mastered the dictionary. There was a lot of vocabulary in that post, but virtually no meaning. I want to know what you meant, but I can't understand it. I will always give typos the benefit of the doubt, but those are easy to see. This post, try as I might, was not.

Thread?? Its clear you didnt even read my POST. I made it clear i dont have insurance but that i have the funds to pay for any and all injuries that i could receive in a car crash. So explain exactly what burden at ALL that ive placed on the State and or society?

I see. So, you know exactly what kinds of injuries you're going to receive? You know when the crash will happen and that you'll be found and taken into emergency care fast enough for the injuries not to worsen (i.e., bleeding out, hypoxia, etc.)? You're psychic, then? Tell me, do you have auto insurance?

I understand that insurance can seem like a scam, but you must understand that you're treating driving like you have a right to do it. I'm sorry, but you don't. Unless you're paying the entire cost of every piece of infrastructure you're going to drive on, over or through, you're engaged in a privilege, not a right. Sure, it seems like the insurance companies got together and made mandatory minimum insurance levels a lobbying prerogative and got such laws passed, but to not have done that would have allowed the un- and underinsured problem to continue. The problem of people who DON'T have your retirement surplus of personal cash to pay damages in full when they cause collisions. The government wanted to extend driving privileges to as many people as reasonably possible (likely because of auto industry lobbying, but that's another thread), even those without huge nest-eggs.

The same basic principle applies to health and even life and homeowners' insurance. That means that any law (laws passed by the same body whose JOB IT IS to regulate the PRIVILEGE of automobile transportation) which reduces the overall costs of having the privilege of driving is beneficial to the overall system.

Yup. Retired at 31. Just got a seatbelt ticket a week ago and im still pissed about it.

I KNEW IT! I fucking knew it. You got a minor traffic citation and now you're all pissed about it. Well, why? You've got all that money lying around, unless you were bullshitting us with that line, what's a $100 ticket, or even the slight increase in insurance premiums to you, Midas?

Seat belt laws are a way for cops to get away with writing extra tickets under the guise of public safety. Forcing grown adults to wear seat belts is absurd.

So are speed limit laws...reckless driving laws...drunk driving laws...I can go on, if you like. The point is, though, that transportation of the nature that involves personal vehicles in a system carries with it a contract between all drivers in the system. You enter that contract when you pass the driver's examination and are LICENSED to drive. That license implies that you take responsibility for all your actions on the road, and the government takes responsibility for making that system as safe as it can possibly be made while imposing the least restrictive environment to do so.

Being thrown from your vehicle creates a potential hazard for other drivers, period. The system is made unsafe with your carcass, live or dead, potentially lying on the road...potentially in conditions of limited visibility. That's in addition to the familial, societal and economic hardship potential already mentioned in the thread. That's a lot of "potentials", I know, but the point is that it's reasonable to expect that it could happen in a collision.

That's not to say that people shouldn't wear seat belts when they're grown adults. But no one should be forcing them to, especially not some jerkoff cop who just wants to make a quick buck for himself and his local PD. The American public is gouged enough these days, what with ATM fees, high prices for shitty products, and surprise price hikes, that it's about damn time to give people a break.

That's very populist, but also mostly irrelevant. First of all, police officers aren't on commission. I've heard of ticket "quotas", but whether that's how the local jurisdiction operates or not, the point is that the police are the government's way of, once again, ensuring the safety of the system as best they can. That's their job.

It can seem ridiculous, but it's necessary. I ABSOLUTELY hate the fact that every speeding ticket I've ever received, with the exception of my first one back in 1991, has been in the middle of NOWHERE. I keep asking "who the hell are you serving and protecting by citing me for TEN OVER in the middle of CENTRAL OREGON when I haven't passed another car but THAT COP in 20 minutes?!?" Thing is, once I calm down, I remember that my license is a contract, and the speed limit signs are posted and easy to read, and that I CHOSE to disobey them by speeding too far over the limit, even though it was sunny, high noon, and visibility was about a light-year.

So I drive the speed limit, or only five over, for the next tank of gas, and guess what? I find I've driven farther on that tank than I did when I was 10 or more over the limit. That's not particularly relevant, but it's a nice side-effect of calming down about the ticket.

That said, the rules should be different for anyone under the age of 18. Those people should be required to wear seat belts, and if they don't, either they or their parents/guardians/the car's driver should be fined. Heavily, in some instances - any parent who doesn't buckle up a fucking 3-year-old should go to jail on the spot, but if they buckle in the 3-year-old and don't buckle in themselves, the cops need to take a chill pill. Honestly, who does someone hurt besides himself with that?

That's an easy way to think, isn't it? But listen -- if the parent of the 3-year-old doesn't buckle up, and a collision happens...and mommy and/or daddy is severely injured or even killed...you HONESTLY don't think that hurts the 3-year-old? Never mind the trauma of watching a parent die violently, but then the kid must grow up without a parent, all because that parent couldn't take two seconds to put on a seatbelt. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to argue that two seconds of obligation is somehow more onerous than having a child lose a parent or (should there be no other immeditate family) become a ward of the state?

A question to those who do not want to wear seatbelts: do you wear them when with others, either driving with passengers or in someone else's car?

Neither of them are victimless crimes.

There are monetary costs in case of negligence and there are also safety issues above the risk taker (esp. in case of drugs). Not forgetting the victim's friends and family.

Sorry, but so long as alcohol is going to be legal, making other drugs illegal -- especially ones that require no processing and were made by God in their usable state -- is not going to make sense to me. So if consuming alcohol is victimless, so is lighting up a joint. When do we prosecute people who drink? When they do so irresponsibly and endanger others: driving, on the job, disorderly conduct, negligence, assault, etc. How are those crimes in any way made worse if the intoxicating agent is a plant rather than a fermented liquid?

I know, that's a threadjack, but I can't let the "(esp. in case of drugs)" fallacy go unchallenged. Apologies.

*snippedy*

Out of curiosity, would you have a problem with requiring parents to buckle in their children?

A question to those who do not want to wear seatbelts: do you wear them when with others, either driving with passengers or in someone else's car?

I can tell you that no one rides in my car without putting on their seatbelt - even if they wouldn't wear one while driving their own car. And, for the most part, no one's given me any shit about it.

Sorry, but so long as alcohol is going to be legal, making other drugs illegal -- especially ones that require no processing and were made by God in their usable state -- is not going to make sense to me. So if consuming alcohol is victimless, so is lighting up a joint. When do we prosecute people who drink? When they do so irresponsibly and endanger others: driving, on the job, disorderly conduct, negligence, assault, etc. How are those crimes in any way made worse if the intoxicating agent is a plant rather than a fermented liquid?

I know, that's a threadjack, but I can't let the "(esp. in case of drungs)" fallacy go unchallenged. Apologies.

I'm with you there. Either leagalis it all, or make it all illeagal.

Sorry, but so long as alcohol is going to be legal, making other drugs illegal -- especially ones that require no processing and were made by God in their usable state -- is not going to make sense to me. So if consuming alcohol is victimless, so is lighting up a joint. When do we prosecute people who drink? When they do so irresponsibly and endanger others: driving, on the job, disorderly conduct, negligence, assault, etc. How are those crimes in any way made worse if the intoxicating agent is a plant rather than a fermented liquid?

I know, that's a threadjack, but I can't let the "(esp. in case of drungs)" fallacy go unchallenged. Apologies.

Alcohol is a drug, to be fair.

And what if you're seriously injured and can't afford to pay? Should the medical staff simply refuse to treat you and let you die in your car?

Of course not -- but doesn't that situation, made worse by not wearing a seatbelt -- illustrate why seatbelt enforcement just might save money?

EDIT: I forgot to do this in my initial post in this thread:

ROTTEN POLL.

I'm with you there. Either leagalis it all, or make it all illeagal.

Or at least have a reason for why some drugs are banned, while others are not. I don't see how marijuana makes someone any more dangerous than alcohol (less so, most of the time), so banning one while allowing the other seems royally stupid to me.

But you would still agree that by not wearing a seatbelt you can cause harm to other people involved in any accident that you may have?
I don't know about that stuff. I wear a seat belt because I want to be less likely to die, and I've never given it much thought beyond that.

But if failing to wear a seatbelt would make me more likely to hurt others or damage stuff, then that would fall under the "I am obligated to not get in the way" clause. This is why I obey speed limits, for instance. Me engaging in behavior that directly endangers other people's health and safety is a no-no.

I'm with you there. Either leagalis it all, or make it all illeagal.
As liberal as I am, I wouldn't go as far as legalising all drugs. It should be done done on a drug-by-drug basis, rather than a blanket legalisation or the arbitrary system we have now.

Fuck no. Children are minors, so I believe the law gets to be more aggressive and interventionist when it comes to kids.

It's like how I think a legal adult should have the right to get stinking drunk and pass out in the bathtub if that's what they want to do, but a legal adult should not have the right to get their three year old stinking drunk and leave it passed out in the bathtub.

=) Sounds about right to me.

I have seen some people who pull the whole, "I'll put my children in danger if I want to," line and it pisses me off.

Out of curiosity, would you have a problem with requiring parents to buckle in their children?

Fuck no. Children are minors, so I believe the law gets to be more aggressive and interventionist when it comes to kids.

It's like how I think a legal adult should have the right to get stinking drunk and pass out in the bathtub if that's what they want to do, but a legal adult should not have the right to get their three year old stinking drunk and leave it passed out in the bathtub.

I don't know about that stuff. I wear a seat belt because I want to be less likely to die, and I've never given it much thought beyond that.

But if failing to wear a seatbelt would make me more likely to hurt others or damage stuff, then that would fall under the "I am obligated to not get in the way" clause. This is why I obey speed limits, for instance. Me engaging in behavior that directly endangers other people's health and safety is a no-no.

Ahh there ya go then. The majority of this thread has just been berating the one or two idiots that insist on proclaiming that not wearing a seatbelt is a 'victimless crime', in that it would cause no harm or hurt to anybody else but themselves.

One of them has even gone so far as to deny that there is anything but the most remotest possiblity that if involved in a crash while not wearing his seatbelt he will not go through the window screen!

Yeah I know!:eek:

As liberal as I am, I wouldn't go as far as legalising all drugs. It should be done done on a drug-by-drug basis, rather than a blanket legalisation or the arbitrary system we have now.

I can see why you would say this, but I can't see how it would work. Either we are adult enough to understand the dangers of what we choose to put into our bodies or we are not. How does saying we are adult enough to understand the dangers of putting this substance into our bodies, but not that one make any sort of sense?

Actually, not wearing a seatbelt is not always a victimless crime. You could crush the person in the seat in front of you.

Actually, not wearing a seatbelt is not always a victimless crime. You could crush the person in the seat in front of you.

Exactly.

Actually, not wearing a seatbelt is not always a victimless crime. You could crush the person in the seat in front of you.

To be fair, that person chose to ride in the seat in front of you in a car, despite the fact that you weren't wearing a seatbelt. They thus chose to take on that risk.

And what if you're seriously injured and can't afford to pay? Should the medical staff simply refuse to treat you and let you die in your car?If they are feeling generous they can do as they please. We are victims of our own actions, genie. If I spent all my money on crack and gambling, should someone step in and pay for my food? If I didn't wear my seatbelt when my insurance policy explicitly states I must do so to receive cover, should someone step in and pay? When I leave my front door open and someone steals all of my furniture, should someone pay for new stuff?

Actually, there could be a lucrative business in putting short sighted individuals into crippling debt in such circumstances.

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHHH"
"Ah, you didn't wear a seatbelt there did you?"
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGHHHH"
"Mmm yes. Well let us see, your insurance agency won't cover you for this, meaning you have to pay up front"
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGHHHHHH"
"Mhmm, just sign here for medical treatment."
"AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHHHHH"
"That'll do. Thank you and good day sir"

To be fair, that person chose to ride in the seat in front of you in a car, despite the fact that you weren't wearing a seatbelt. They thus chose to take on that risk.

Oh, come on. Please tell me you're joking.

I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?

Thats a pile of shite for a start, if you are in the back seat of a car with no seatbelt on, its common place in the event of a crash to kill the person in front of you by your body weight being propelled forward with huge force into the back of their seat, crushing them against the front of the car.
The reason these laws are there is to stop people who have no idea what they are talking about battering on in ignorance about their human rights without considering the consequences of their actions.

AMK
xxx

Oh, come on. Please tell me you're joking.
Well, if somebody chooses to get in a car driven by a drunk, we usually feel comfortable telling them that they made a fucking stupid choice, right?

Why shouldn't we apply that to something like seat belts?

Why do people keep calling drug use a victemless crime?


I don't think we need seatbelt laws. No I'm not a wacko, I always wear mine but most people I think today wear seatbelts.

Oh, come on. Please tell me you're joking.
No, I'd support that. You are at all times responsible for your own safety (I don't care about our liability culture, that amounts to nothing). I would even go so far as to say that you are responsible even if the other person didn't tell you. You are responsible to find out, (It is, after all, your safety). Only if the other person actively deceived you could you pass that off.

Why do people keep calling drug use a victemless crime? Because the only victim is the consensual perpetrator, meaning he isn't in fact a victim. If his life is destroyed, it is a result of his choices, and thus not a victim (Or rather, a victim of his own actions- something we should always be free to be). Anyone else who claims victimhood is a problem-owning bitch (i.e. If you don't like the effect your junkie son has on your family, disown him and stop bitching).

Oh, come on. Please tell me you're joking.

Why? I don't drive my car unless everyone in it - even my dogs - is buckled up. That is a choice I make. I could also make the choice not to ride with someone who doesn't impose the same rules.

My pickup truck has a beep that drives me crazy until I put my seatbelt on.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?

When alcohol was outlawed in the United States alcoholism didn't vanish. People simply turned to a black market that filled the void. Lot's of people got screwed up by bath tub hooch and the alcohol itself and lots more got mowed down by Chicago typewriters in bloody turf wars. The same is happening today with drugs. Why? Yes drugs can screw you up, yes seatbelts can save lives. But is it really the governments place to protect people...from themselves?

Woops, speeling error. Should be Wright.

The government funds health care in my country, so..

The government funds health care in my country, so..
Right. So you have your income forcefully expropriated to pay for the medical bills of people who don't even care to look after their own safety. Why should they, it's not like it'll cost them anything.

It's like the old suicide debate.

'It's my choice to take my life, it doesn't affect anyone else'

Answer:

'Do you have a family?'
'Do you have a job?'
'Do you pay taxes?'

You never cease to amaze me.

You never cease to amaze me. Yeah, he is something. I think he is actually a Kiwi posing as an Australian or something.

Right. So you have your income forcefully expropriated to pay for the medical bills of people who don't even care to look after their own safety. Why should they, it's not like it'll cost them anything.

Why should one's income be forcefully expropiated to pay for the defense and protection of people who don't care to protect themselves with protection insurance, a mutual defense pact with neighbors, or one own resources?

I hate libertarians. The government's main job is to protect. I don't see how anyone can be offended by a seatbelt or helmet law. You people waste so much effort on the most mundane crap.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?

When alcohol was outlawed in the United States alcoholism didn't vanish. People simply turned to a black market that filled the void. Lot's of people got screwed up by bath tub hooch and the alcohol itself and lots more got mowed down by Chicago typewriters in bloody turf wars. The same is happening today with drugs. Why? Yes drugs can screw you up, yes seatbelts can save lives. But is it really the governments place to protect people...from themselves?

Woops, speeling error. Should be Wright.


AHEM:
Not wearing a seatbelt = you flying out of your seat into a person in front, in a crash. Not victimless.
Drugs = makes someone nuts. Nuts person attacks other people. Non-nuts person desperate for drugs steals from others. Not victimless.

And as for choice - people can only have true choice if they know all the facts. Since most people don't know all the facts about various drugs, there needs to be laws for safety.

I am suprised.

Both by the results of the poll and the results of the thread. A lot of people seem to have completely missed the point. I'm not saying that seatbelts don't save lives. I'm not promoting drug use and reckless behavior. I'm questioning the extent to which government should protect its citizens. I will admit that government has a duty to protect its citizens but not from themselves.

With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on we’re all damaged.

In fact, our Constitution declares in very cogent and clear language exactly what the government should be protecting. If I'm not mistaken, it was protection from the theft of "life, liberty, and property" at the hands of other citizens or countries, wasn't it? If you choose to not wear a seatbelt, you're potentially 'stealing' your own life, not someone else's.

So why enforce your seatbelt vendetta on risktakers? More importantly, where do you get the authoritarian priviledge over my affairs?

In fact, our Constitution declares in very cogent and clear language exactly what the government should be protecting. If I'm not mistaken, it was protection from the theft of "life, liberty, and property" at the hands of other citizens or countries, wasn't it? If you choose to not wear a seatbelt, you're potentially 'stealing' your own life, not someone else's.

So why enforce your seatbelt vendetta on risktakers? More importantly, where do you get the authoritarian priviledge over my affairs?

Have you even read any of the previous posts? It has been made PLAINLY clear that you are putting others at risk by not wearing a seatbelt. Therefore according to that wonderful piece of paper that took 3 (?) Amendments before they bothered with human rights, you are stealing someone elses life.

AMK
xxx

Those arguments that there is no such thing as a victimless crime are flawed, Chesser Scotia.

My words don't seem to be sinking in so I'll say it again. With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

And because of Multilands wonderful post:
Drugs = makes someone nuts. Nuts person attacks other people. Non-nuts person desperate for drugs steals from others. Not victimless.

And as for choice - people can only have true choice if they know all the facts. Since most people don't know all the facts about various drugs, there needs to be laws for safety.
I may just do a thread on voodoo pharmacology.

Woohoo! 100th post! Like my sig?

Those arguments that there is no such thing as a victimless crime are flawed, Chesser Scotia.

My words don't seem to be sinking in so I'll say it again. With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

And because of Multilands wonderful post:

I may just do a thread on voodoo pharmacology.

Woohoo! 100th post! Like my sig?

I am not talking about victimless crimes and drug taking. This thread is about seatbelt wearing, and not wearing a seatbelt blatantly puts both yourself and others at risk. That is undeniable.
Therefore, by choosing to put yourself at risk, you are forcing someone else who has not the choice to dictate your actions, to live in a state of danger that could easily be avoided. It is rank selfishness and it is right that the law says you must belt up. It is no more an invasion of your human rights as you putting someone elses life at risk is an invasion of theirs.

AMK
xxx

I am not talking about victimless crimes and drug taking. This thread is about seatbelt wearing, and not wearing a seatbelt blatantly puts both yourself and others at risk. That is undeniable.
Therefore, by choosing to put yourself at risk, you are forcing someone else who has not the choice to dictate your actions, to live in a state of danger that could easily be avoided. It is rank selfishness and it is right that the law says you must belt up. It is no more an invasion of your human rights as you putting someone elses life at risk is an invasion of theirs.

AMK
xxx
Actually, if you go back and read MY op, you'll see that this whole thread is about victimless crime. You put no one else in any danger by not buckling up or by taking drugs. You do put others in danger when you drive intoxicated but I'm not arguing against those laws. I'm arguing against government dictating how people live their lives, specifically what personal risks they can and cannot take.

I do not support this law. If you want to be stupid and not wear it, then the consequences are yours. Of course seat belts save lives and you're a fool not to wear one but that should be your choice, not the government's responsibility to make sure you're not a dope. I do not like being told what I can and cannot do inside of my own car. With the exception of drinking alcohol, which is a big no-no, my not wearing a seatbelt isn't going to affect the rest of the road. It is my problem, my choice, my consequences.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Or laws prohibiting drug use? Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity? I understand that seatbelts save lives but since I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?

When alcohol was outlawed in the United States alcoholism didn't vanish. People simply turned to a black market that filled the void. Lot's of people got screwed up by bath tub hooch and the alcohol itself and lots more got mowed down by Chicago typewriters in bloody turf wars. The same is happening today with drugs. Why? Yes drugs can screw you up, yes seatbelts can save lives. But is it really the governments place to protect people...from themselves?

Woops, speeling error. Should be Wright.
So you don't think you should be required by law to wear a seat belt huh? Why should you be allowed to become a human projectile when you get thrown from your car and end up landing in the on coming lanes causing an accident?

Warning!!

Click on thrown from car (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=thrown+from+car) if you can stomach it.

my not wearing a seatbelt isn't going to affect the rest of the road.It can and has. See my previous post.

Actually, if you go back and read MY op, you'll see that this whole thread is about victimless crime. You put no one else in any danger by not buckling up or by taking drugs. You do put others in danger when you drive intoxicated but I'm not arguing against those laws. I'm arguing against government dictating how people live their lives, specifically what personal risks they can and cannot take.

YOU DO PUT OTHERS IN DANGER BY NOT BUCKLING UP!!! Please tell me how you do not, please. Someone in the back of a car who gets thrown forward in the event of a crash, and kills whoever is in front of them. That is common and would not have happened if the person in the back was buckled up.
I am not talking about whether the person in the front should have forced that person or not to wear a seatbelt, im just trying to get some common sense that for once and for all we can agree that you are putting somoene in danger by not buckling up?!?!?!?!

AMK
xxx

What gives you the right to force me to spend my tax dollars scrapping and cleaning up your dumb ass off the asphalt and you get smeared from a crash?

Jesh, it takes, what, two WHOLE seconds to actually buckle up? Why is it even an issue?

Quoted for Truth.

Also, Frank Lloyd Wright is an extremely overrated architect.

As is almost every architect after about 1940 as well. As is Bauhaus.

I hate libertarians. The government's main job is to protect. I don't see how anyone can be offended by a seatbelt or helmet law. You people waste so much effort on the most mundane crap.
They're the one's spending a bunch of money to regulate the wearing of seatbelts and helmets. If anyone's wasting effort on mundane crap, it's the nanny-state folks who pass these laws.

Seatbelt laws are a natural consequence of a society that coddles the weak and infirm. As such, if you make yourself weak or infirm, they have to pay for that, and they'd rather not. So instead they govern as many aspects of your life as they can even though it's none of their business without their pre-existing socialism.

You do put others in danger when you drive intoxicated but I'm not arguing against those laws.
I argue against those laws, too.

It's not about danger, it's about harm. And you don't harm anyone by driving drunk. You harm people by crashing your car, and that should carry exceptionally high penalties to discourage people from driving drunk, but if you know back roads no one else uses and creep along them at 5 mph when you're drunk and never hurt anybody doing it, I don't see why this behaviour should be prohibited.

Plus, it would save us a bunch of money on enforcement because police wouldn't be going around trying to prevent behaviour. They'd just be reacting to it.

Those arguments that there is no such thing as a victimless crime are flawed, Chesser Scotia.

My words don't seem to be sinking in so I'll say it again. With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

And because of Multilands wonderful post:

I may just do a thread on voodoo pharmacology.

Woohoo! 100th post! Like my sig?

It's illegal to walk down the street firing blanks out of a pistol in the air. No one gets harmed directly by that.
It is illegal to purchase and store safely and correctly, chemical weapons, as a private citizen, no one gets harmed by that. (Unless you use them but thats a different issue)
It's illegal in the US to be a communist. No one gets harmed by that.

But I don't see anyone complaining.
My point is that in some cases, (with the exception of the communism bit) restricting peoples ability to act in a selfish and stupid way is a good idea. Its about how that is employed. This whole scaremongering pish about the first link being forged is nothing but that, scaremongering.
The reason these laws are in place is that people are too busy beating on about their own human rights and tend to forget how their actions infringe on other's human rights!

AMK
xxx

I argue against those laws, too.

It's not about danger, it's about harm. And you don't harm anyone by driving drunk. You harm people by crashing your car, and that should carry exceptionally high penalties to discourage people from driving drunk, but if you know back roads no one else uses and creep along them at 5 mph when you're drunk and never hurt anybody doing it, I don't see why this behaviour should be prohibited.

Plus, it would save us a bunch of money on enforcement because police wouldn't be going around trying to prevent behaviour. They'd just be reacting to it.

Its a bit late reacting to 3 dead people lying squashed by a drunk driver is it not?

Right. So you have your income forcefully expropriated to pay for the medical bills of people who don't even care to look after their own safety. Why should they, it's not like it'll cost them anything.
Because they also have to pay National Insurance?

I do not support this law. If you want to be stupid and not wear it, then the consequences are yours. Of course seat belts save lives and you're a fool not to wear one but that should be your choice, not the government's responsibility to make sure you're not a dope. I do not like being told what I can and cannot do inside of my own car. With the exception of drinking alcohol, which is a big no-no, my not wearing a seatbelt isn't going to affect the rest of the road. It is my problem, my choice, my consequences.

One condition: you void ALL of your insurance policies, including life and health insurance. All insurance premuims are predicated upon average payouts. Whether your insurance be private or public, all other responsible persons paying insurance face higher premiums if you are going to be so stupid that a minor accident that you should have walked away from results in the insurance company covering your lifetime of home-care after you render yourself a quadraplegic, or kills you before you have the chance to pay up a lifetime of premiums.


So, if you are willing to live without insurance (including any safety-net care funded by tax dollars) so you aren't affecting MY costs - go ahead and be as idiotic as you like.

I argue against those laws, too.

It's not about danger, it's about harm. And you don't harm anyone by driving drunk. You harm people by crashing your car, and that should carry exceptionally high penalties to discourage people from driving drunk, but if you know back roads no one else uses and creep along them at 5 mph when you're drunk and never hurt anybody doing it, I don't see why this behaviour should be prohibited.

Plus, it would save us a bunch of money on enforcement because police wouldn't be going around trying to prevent behaviour. They'd just be reacting to it.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Cops shouldn't bother looking for drunk drivers until AFTER they cause the accident........

:headbang:

I hate libertarians. The government's main job is to protect. I don't see how anyone can be offended by a seatbelt or helmet law. You people waste so much effort on the most mundane crap.

No. These laws are bullshit. I don't give a shit what MY CHOICES do to affect society or my damned job. One less person paying taxes won't do shit to the system. My job can always hire someone else. These are not factors and saying how I could potentially hurt people. People arguing this see dollar signs when they should see people.

The only way I could hurt someone by not wearing a seatbelt is friends and family, through emotional damage. If I, or anyone else, is willing to risk not wearing a seatbelt then fair enough. You chose the risk, deal with consequences. Now, I wear my seatbelt 85% of the time, the other 15% of the time I choose the risk.

All these "father knows best" type of laws are complete bull.

Is this the kind of thing that bugs you people? Honestly?

How much does it really affect your life?

I argue against those laws, too.

It's not about danger, it's about harm.It's about a combination of both.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I don't have time to read this thread, and don't really want to so I'm just going to say this: A seatbelt probably saved my life, or at least saved my ribs from being shattered on the steering wheel and my face being shattered on the windscreen.

And just when has this happened? I have never heard of this happening, and it seems like the chances are so remote that it can be ignored.

Anyway. Seatbelt laws are unnecessary. I'm in favor of seatbelts, but a law saying you have to wear them? No, that is unnecessary. If someone wants to be stupid and take risks, let them. Same with helmet laws.

Lol?

If someone wants to drive the wrong way(as in against the flow of traffic) on a highway/interstate/turnpike/road, why not let them?

Why not let a lunatic store bowling balls on a shelf in the back of the car, so when he/she/it slams on the brakes or crashes into another car, 10 pound projectiles fly through the front windshield and wreak destruction?

If someone wants to juggle a bunch of loaded weapons with the safety off, we should let them, right?

I don't have time to read this thread, and don't really want to so I'm just going to say this: A seatbelt probably saved my life, or at least saved my ribs from being shattered on the steering wheel and my face being shattered on the windscreen.
Lucky you used it. Nobody is saying seatbelts aren't worthwhile, the argument is whether it is cool to strip people of their freedoms 'for their own good'.

People should be free to do as they please in this matter with a few stipulations

1) Government and or insurance companies no longer have to cover your medical bills if you KNOWINGLY forget to buckle up

2) Any minors or people without capacity to make an informed decision MUST be buckled up.

You are free to make the choice but other people should not have to pay for your dumb decision.

Lol?

If someone wants to drive the wrong way(as in against the flow of traffic) on a highway/interstate/turnpike/road, why not let them?

Why not let a lunatic store bowling balls on a shelf in the back of the car, so when he/she/it slams on the brakes or crashes into another car, 10 pound projectiles fly through the front windshield and wreak destruction?

If someone wants to juggle a bunch of loaded weapons with the safety off, we should let them, right?

Because they are not risking just themselfs they are risking others in

Its really not that hard to understand
Knowingly risking yourself = alright (though stupid)
Knowingly risking others = not alright (and stupid as well)

Lol?

If someone wants to drive the wrong way(as in against the flow of traffic) on a highway/interstate/turnpike/road, why not let them? Because that endangers other drivers. Someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt endangers nobody outside his own car.

Why not let a lunatic store bowling balls on a shelf in the back of the car, so when he/she/it slams on the brakes or crashes into another car, 10 pound projectiles fly through the front windshield and wreak destruction? I agree, why not? Seriously, the gene pool needs some chlorine.

If someone wants to juggle a bunch of loaded weapons with the safety off, we should let them, right?Again, false analogy, because in this case the juggler risks the safety of others. But let him juggle blades dipped in deadly poison, for all I care.

Because they are not risking just themselfs they are risking others in

Its really not that hard to understand
Knowingly risking yourself = alright (though stupid)
Knowingly risking others = not alright (and stupid as well)

Exactly.

I am not sure that is his reasoning though.

"No. These laws are bullshit. I don't give a shit what MY CHOICES do to affect society or my damned job"-Trollgaard

I question the sincerity of people who say the gene pool needs clearing. For starters, all of these people are convinced that when it is cleaned, they will not be removed. Secondly, while they have no problem with people dying in stupid ways (or so they say), I am sure a majority would be upset if someone were to suggest making everyone with an IQ under 75 infertile, or to systematically kill everyone who proves to be "unintelligent".
Maybe, seat belts are an example of where the government should not consult its Locke, or Mills, or Rand, or any of the other ideologies which everyone loves to identify with. Maybe, it should enforce a law designed to keep its citizens from killing themselves. I know, "decencyism" is not nearly as suave as libertarianism, or neo-post-modern utilitarianism, but sometimes it actually works.

Because that endangers other drivers. Someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt endangers nobody outside his own car.

I agree, why not? Seriously, the gene pool needs some chlorine.

Again, false analogy, because in this case the juggler risks the safety of others. But let him juggle blades dipped in deadly poison, for all I care.

1. In theory, hopefully the person doesn't become a projectile.

2. The bowling balls would fly through the windshield, hitting other vehicles and whatnot, causing more accidents.

3. That would be an extreme juggler.

Exactly.

I am not sure that is his reasoning though.

"No. These laws are bullshit. I don't give a shit what MY CHOICES do to affect society or my damned job"-Trollgaard I believe that quote was specifically in reference to something from AP, who asserted that it was important that people are forced to be safe so their death does not detract from the communal well being (i.e. You can't just let idiots die, they play an important role in the community, and pay taxes with their jobs). Or some Bullshit.

I vote we get all libertarians and drop them in the middle of an Amazonian rain forest so they can live without evil government and society telling them what to do, see how long they survive 'independently' and with 'liberty'.

Considering you even believe such a questions, I hope I'm not nearby if you crash, I would not want to be hit by your skull. Getting hit by an object that dense would be fatal.

in favor of seat belt laws that wouldn't also apply to things like high school football ??

Kids die playing sports (not as many as in car accidents, but if you are just arguing that they aren't dangerous enough, exactly how dangerous is dangerous enough, and who exactly do you trust to make that decision) and there are lots of injuries that insurance pays for. If it's *private* insurance, then it's a private deal between you and your insurance company, and none of the government's business, smokers pay extra for health insurance, non-seatbelt wearers should pay more for car insurance, but that's all.

BTW, I *always* wear mine, and always will, but I seriously resent the fact that the government thinks it has a right to force me to.

To use a selfish argument, your lack of a seat-belt costs me money if you get into an accident get splattered everywhere.

As NERVUN said, why should I have to have my tax money used to scrape your remains off the road cause you're too stupid to wear a seat belt?

Why should my insurance costs rise (ever so slightly, but still) because your skull, although thin enough for your brains to be smeared all over your windshield and maybe the hood of another car and the asphalt, is too dense for you to buckle up?

No, fuck that shit. You'll wear your damn seat belt, even if by rights you're so stupid you don't deserve to live.

I vote we get all libertarians and drop them in the middle of an Amazonian rain forest so they can live without evil government and society telling them what to do, see how long they survive 'independently' and with 'liberty'.

For once, I actually agree (well, not really. I wouldn't actually drop people in a rain forest because of their political beliefs, but the sentiment is the same).

BTW, I *always* wear mine, and always will, but I seriously resent the fact that the government thinks it has a right to force me to.

The government doesn't force you, it just punishes you if you disobey. :p

I question the sincerity of people who say the gene pool needs clearing. For starters, all of these people are convinced that when it is cleaned, they will not be removed. Presumably, most people do not consider themselves to be idiots. Secondly, while they have no problem with people dying in stupid ways (or so they say), I am sure a majority would be upset if someone were to suggest making everyone with an IQ under 75 infertile, or to systematically kill everyone who proves to be "unintelligent". IQ is a joke of a method to measure intelligence, and anyhow the premise is something of a red herring. The point isn't to cleanse humanity of whatsoever features individual x deems undesirable, the core point is that people should have the freedom to do as they please with their own fate, to the benefit or detriment thereof (limited of course by the infraction they may have on the fate of others)- which ties back to the genetic hygiene in that it is somewhat important (in a somewhat humourous and secondary way) that individuals are given the freedom to innovate and eliminate themselves.
Maybe, seat belts are an example of where the government should not consult its Locke, or Mills, or Rand, or any of the other ideologies which everyone loves to identify with. Maybe, it should enforce a law designed to keep its citizens from killing themselves. I know, "decencyism" is not nearly as suave as libertarianism, or neo-post-modern utilitarianism, but sometimes it actually works. Or maybe you are just wanking your brainstick at finding a nice way to say we should do things the way they are done because you think it is 'decent'. Who are you to tell Fuckjob McFuck he has to wear a seatbelt. Maybe he really doesn't want to, maybe he doesn't care about the safety risks. Not everyone agrees with you on what they should do with themselves, luckily, they don't have to (as implied in the notion of people knowing what is best for themselves- the underpinning foundation of individual freedoms and rights).

for the planet/environment would be to re-institute natural selection for homo-sapiens, let the idiots kill themselves off and even without changing a thing pollution in all forms will drop (half as many people, half as many cars, power plants, etc.., etc...)

Hell, if we removed warnings like "caution flame is hot" from things, and that particular example was actually on a product I recently purchased, I bet we'd lose enough moron-baggage that we could get rid of all the expensive emissions crap on our cars and *still* eliminate global warming, to say nothing of the boost it would be to the economy not to have to drag the anchor of people who aren't smart enough not to drink battery.

It's one thing to be disabled, another entirely to just be an idiot.

For once, I actually agree (well, not really. I wouldn't actually drop people in a rain forest because of their political beliefs, but the sentiment is the same).

I bet most libertarians would *love* an opportunity like that. Assuming that the country that *owns* the rainforest doesn't decide that it needs to run things once the libertarians develop a thriving economy there :)

I vote we get all libertarians and drop them in the middle of an Amazonian rain forest so they can live without evil government and society telling them what to do, see how long they survive 'independently' and with 'liberty'.
Just like the little Stalinist you are :)
"SEND THEM TO THE GULAGS!"

Exactly.

I am not sure that is his reasoning though.

"No. These laws are bullshit. I don't give a shit what MY CHOICES do to affect society or my damned job"-Trollgaard

Possibly but personally I need more then some vauge damage to "society" or "job"

Again for a private employer I am all for them having a reasonable policy for firing someone who chooses to live a risky lifestyle that effects their job performance

To use a selfish argument, your lack of a seat-belt costs me money if you get into an accident get splattered everywhere.

As NERVUN said, why should I have to have my tax money used to scrape your remains off the road cause you're too stupid to wear a seat belt?

Why should my insurance costs rise (ever so slightly, but still) because your skull, although thin enough for your brains to be smeared all over your windshield and maybe the hood of another car and the asphalt, is too dense for you to buckle up?

No, fuck that shit. You'll wear your damn seat belt, even if by rights you're so stupid you don't deserve to live. I agree, you shouldn't have to pay for the negligence of others. However, the solution isn't to strip the populace of their freedom anytime it could infringe on your pocket book. Rather you simply need to deny responsibility for them.

In practical terms this means private insurance, and a 'no seatbelt, no payout' policy. Much nicer than eroding the individual rights of all.

Do you "own" yourself or does the government own you.

Either it's prohibited because you are a valuable asset of the government/community/whatever and you aren't yours to risk, or you *do* "own" yourself and have a right to determine your own fate and things like the choice of how much risk to that life is acceptable is yours to make.

Oh, and how many of you actually believe that states implement these laws to "save people" and how many believe they are implemented as revenue streams (because the know that more taxes will lose them their jobs).

"caution flame is hot"

LOL

-Allaina

PS: I believe in mandatory seatbelt laws. They save lives. Also, if you don't want to obey the laws in my society, change them (which you obviously can't or you would have done so by now), or get the fuck out. I hear North Korea's nice this time of year.

Or maybe you are just wanking your brainstick at finding a nice way to say we should do things the way they are done because you think it is 'decent'. Who are you to tell Fuckjob McFuck he has to wear a seatbelt. Maybe he really doesn't want to, maybe he doesn't care about the safety risks. Not everyone agrees with you on what they should do with themselves, luckily, they don't have to (as implied in the notion of people knowing what is best for themselves- the underpinning foundation of individual freedoms and rights).

If people are really so opposed to wearing a seat belt, they won't. However, most people do not put as much thought into it as I think people in this discussion are. Making it mandatory to wear a seat belt does not discourage people who value their freedom of choice over common sense, but it does discourage people who wouldn't normally think to wear one. Thus, it saves the apathetic.

LOL

-Allaina

PS: I believe in mandatory seatbelt laws. They save lives. Also, if you don't want to obey the laws in my society, change them (which you obviously can't or you would have done so by now), or get the fuck out. I hear North Korea's nice this time of year.
Right, and which God charged you with the responsibility for the safety and lives of others? Or perhaps you were written requests from the citizenry to do so?

LOL

-Allaina

PS: I believe in mandatory seatbelt laws. They save lives. Also, if you don't want to obey the laws in my society, change them (which you obviously can't or you would have done so by now), or get the fuck out. I hear North Korea's nice this time of year.

How 'bout a law prohibiting sex outside of marriage, would stop AIDS dead in it's tracks and save millions of lives.

Or a law requiring you to get certain preventative medical procedures.

If you don't favor any law that would save say 100,000 lives no matter how facist then why this one ???

Oh, BTW, that "caution: flame is hot" was on a propane torch, that sort of thing is what the "society needs to take care of me like an infant" thing breeds. I didn't enjoy being treated like a child when I was one, I certainly don't enjoy it now. As far as "getting out" this society *used* to be the type I would prefer, then you guys ruined it, unfortunatly I can't find one much better anywhere. Although with a good libertarian running it I bet N Korea could be turned into a "capitalist paradise" inside of a decade :)

Do you "own" yourself or does the government own you.

Either it's prohibited because you are a valuable asset of the government/community/whatever and you aren't yours to risk, or you *do* "own" yourself and have a right to determine your own fate and things like the choice of how much risk to that life is acceptable is yours to make.

Oh, and how many of you actually believe that states implement these laws to "save people" and how many believe they are implemented as revenue streams (because the know that more taxes will lose them their jobs).

People *own* themselves.

I'm the only one hurt by my choice not to buckle up then why is it a crime if I don't?


This is simply not correct. Your death or injury has a negative impact on the economy. If you have a family they will collect social security and other benefits. The government not only loses your income tax but (if injured) the cost of your rehabilitation doesn't add real productivity to the society because that money isn't going toward goods. It's simply more economical for the society as a whole to keep people alive and well until they reach retirement age. The society has invested in your education and deserves a return on that investment.

If you're past retirement age, the state has far less interest in keeping you alive, but still has an interest in keeping you healthy. So if you're over retirement make sure you actually kill yourself and don't just get injured.

LOL

-Allaina

PS: I believe in mandatory seatbelt laws. They save lives. Also, if you don't want to obey the laws in my society, change them (which you obviously can't or you would have done so by now), or get the fuck out. I hear North Korea's nice this time of year.
That makes no sense ... attitudes of the majority change all the time just because there is not enough pressure now does not mean there will not be in the future. It also does not mean that someone with a different opinion should leave. That is the whole point of a democracy (or in this case a republic)

LOL

-Allaina

PS: I believe in mandatory seatbelt laws. They save lives. Also, if you don't want to obey the laws in my society, change them (which you obviously can't or you would have done so by now), or get the fuck out. I hear North Korea's nice this time of year.

If you don't like Amerrikah, you an git ouuuuuuuut!

Oh, and I'll do whatever I damn well please.

In response to the original topic:

I would say that a government cannot, and really shouldn't try, to protect you from yourself. If you want to ram your head into a wall repeatedly, go ahead.

The line is crossed when you start hurting other people. That's why drug use is banned; people using various drugs tend to hurt others while high. Drunk people cannot drive, and hit other people while driving. And etcetera, I'm sure you can fill in the blanks with more examples.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't hurt other people unless there's some fluke of physics. So honestly, while I will always wear one, I will disagree with the law merely because it's telling me that the government knows best, and not I, for myself.

If people are really so opposed to wearing a seat belt, they won't. However, most people do not put as much thought into it as I think people in this discussion are. Most people don't put much thought into anything. As one would expect from a political forum, the debate is regarding principles, not direct implications. Making it mandatory to wear a seat belt does not discourage people who value their freedom of choice over common sense, Well it does, by slapping them with a hefty fine when they are caught. but it does discourage people who wouldn't normally think to wear one. Thus, it saves the apathetic. I disagree, what saves the apathetic is education. Those who grew up in the 70' when seatbelts were optional took a very long time, a couple of decades of government public service announcements and numerous fines to become accustomed to the notion of wearing them. Those who grew up in the 80's and later have never even questioned wearing them, having had it so ingrained in their education that seatbelts are a *must*. When I wear my seatbelt it is not because it is illegal if I don't, it is because I have been effectively brainwashed and conditioned to unquestioningly do so. When I went to Asia, my wife's family laughed at how seatbelt-conscious I was considering it wasn't the law there. In cars without seatbelts I felt downright queasy. It all lies in education. Legislation means nothing to people until after they fuck up.

This is simply not correct. Your death or injury has a negative impact on the economy. If you have a family they will collect social security and other benefits. The government not only loses your income tax but (if injured) the cost of your rehabilitation doesn't add real productivity to the society because that money isn't going toward goods. It's simply more economical for the society as a whole to keep people alive and well until they reach retirement age. The society has invested in your education and deserves a return on that investment.

If you're past retirement age, the state has far less interest in keeping you alive, but still has an interest in keeping you healthy. So if you're over retirement make sure you actually kill yourself and don't just get injured.Obviously the libertarian position of self-determination does not include a social welfare and medical system.

LOL

-Allaina

PS: I believe in mandatory seatbelt laws. They save lives. Also, if you don't want to obey the laws in my society, change them (which you obviously can't or you would have done so by now), or get the fuck out. I hear North Korea's nice this time of year.

People *own* themselves.

If I own myself, then something that is only a risk to me is only my business.

If you follow the "if you get hurt we'll have to pay for it" nonsense, how does this sound, what if I promised to hit myself in the head every time you vote for a democrat. Would that give me the right to force you to stop voting democrat because it would hurt my head ?? That's the same logic that the "insurance/medicare/etc..." argument uses. If the government doesn't think it should pay for some stuff then it shouldn't pay for it, not prevent you from doing it.

In response to the original topic:

I would say that a government cannot, and really shouldn't try, to protect you from yourself. If you want to ram your head into a wall repeatedly, go ahead.

The line is crossed when you start hurting other people. That's why drug use is banned; people using various drugs tend to hurt others while high. Drunk people cannot drive, and hit other people while driving. And etcetera, I'm sure you can fill in the blanks with more examples.

Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't hurt other people unless there's some fluke of physics. So honestly, while I will always wear one, I will disagree with the law merely because it's telling me that the government knows best, and not I, for myself. All in agreement except for the bolded part. Drug use is banned because a bunch of calvinists declared war on pleasure in the 40's. Of the many tendencies you have when 'high', hurting people is not one of them (perhaps even less so than when you are sober). Obviously it depends on the drug, but it stands true for almost all recreational drugs. Perhaps you are confusing this with drug-related crime (which most often occurs when the perpetrators are sober- thus the crime to correct said state of sobriety).

Well it does, by slapping them with a hefty fine when they are caught.
Fair-weathered libertarians, eh?
That may be true, but I think it is a small incentive. Most people who do not wear a seat belt are not caught, just as most speeders are not caught. If the punishment were, say, the death penalty, it would stop them (it would also be cruel and unusual, if effective).

This is simply not correct. Your death or injury has a negative impact on the economy. If you have a family they will collect social security and other benefits. The government not only loses your income tax but (if injured) the cost of your rehabilitation doesn't add real productivity to the society because that money isn't going toward goods. It's simply more economical for the society as a whole to keep people alive and well until they reach retirement age. The society has invested in your education and deserves a return on that investment.

If you're past retirement age, the state has far less interest in keeping you alive, but still has an interest in keeping you healthy. So if you're over retirement make sure you actually kill yourself and don't just get injured.

To hell with the state. People don't owe the state anything. The state owes the people. Society and the state can go shove it where the sun don't shine with these ludicrous 'father knows best' and 'nanny state' laws. People do not need protecting from themselves.

Also, you are equating people with dollar signs, which is wrong. People are not dollar signs, they are people, and can do as they please. If they want to take risks, let them. Its not the states business.

Obviously the libertarian position of self-determination does not include a social welfare and medical system.

Sure it does ... like I said I am all for the freedom of insurance company and or government health organization being able to reduce or eliminate aid in the case of someone repeatedly refusing to take a basic safety precaution (not like a one time thing but when they can show that the person chronically refuses) .

Obviously the libertarian position of self-determination does not include a social welfare and medical system.

It just precludes it being mandatory. Lots of people are wiling to help the unfortunate, and if they were allowed to keep more of their money they would undoubtedly choose to give more. A libertarian government could even be the agent of social welfare and medicaid, etc... It just couldn't be funded with mandatory taxes.

To hell with the state. People don't owe the state anything. The state owes the people. Society and the state can go shove it where the sun don't shine with these ludicrous 'father knows best' and 'nanny state' laws. People do not need protecting from themselves.

Also, you are equating people with dollar signs, which is wrong. People are not dollar signs, they are people, and can do as they please. If they want to take risks, let them. Its not the states business.
There seems to be an idea that the state and the people are somehow separate. Correct me if I'm wrong (or if I'm right, I'm sure it will happen either way), but aren't most developed countries controlled by elected governments?

Sure it does ... like I said I am all for the freedom of insurance company and or government health organization being able to reduce or eliminate aid in the case of someone repeatedly refusing to take a basic safety precaution (not like a one time thing but when they can show that the person chronically refuses) .

Or that. As Scotts put it: "If the government doesn't think it should pay for some stuff then it shouldn't pay for it, not prevent you from doing it." I was saying more or less the same thing in abstraction in that an insurance company uncoerced would automatically default on the above position.

There seems to be an idea that the state and the people are somehow separate. Correct me if I'm wrong (or if I'm right, I'm sure it will happen either way), but aren't most developed countries controlled by elected governments?

The state is theoretically "the people", yes. The question is how far an individual person's rights can be abridged for the benefit of "the people".

I am merely a collection of individual cells, and if for some reason I needed to sacrifice a number of those cells (say, an appendix worth) for the common good, I wouldn't think twice about it, but when the "cells" are whole people with their own lives, the decision shouldn't be taken so lightly. The greatest atrocities in history have been carried out for "the good of the people".

There seems to be an idea that the state and the people are somehow separate. Correct me if I'm wrong (or if I'm right, I'm sure it will happen either way), but aren't most developed countries controlled by elected governments?

So if there are three guys and two vote to kill the other one, that is cool? What if the three guys vote one of their number as boss, and he kills them both? Democracy doesn't grant legitimacy to crime against the individual perpetrated by the state.

I agree, you shouldn't have to pay for the negligence of others. However, the solution isn't to strip the populace of their freedom anytime it could infringe on your pocket book. Rather you simply need to deny responsibility for them.

In practical terms this means private insurance, and a 'no seatbelt, no payout' policy. Much nicer than eroding the individual rights of all.

I'm fine as long as I'm not footing the bill for your idiocy. If you want to be splattered all over the highway, that's fine, but I better not pay a cent for the cleanup and my car and health insurance better not be raised even one bit because of your fuckup.

Other than that, I'm fine with people being able to not use their seatbelts and die as a result. If you're too stupid to buckle up, even though everyone knows it's important and dramatically increases your chances of surviving an auto wreck, than you don't deserve to live.

So if there are three guys and two vote to kill the other one, that is cool? What if the three guys vote one of their number as boss, and he kills them both? Democracy doesn't grant legitimacy to crime against the individual perpetrated by the state.

No one is making those guys elect a killer. To be honest, I would think voting for such a person would be stupider than not wearing a seat belt, and therefore good for the human race as a whole.

If I own myself, then something that is only a risk to me is only my business.

If you follow the "if you get hurt we'll have to pay for it" nonsense, how does this sound, what if I promised to hit myself in the head every time you vote for a democrat. Would that give me the right to force you to stop voting democrat because it would hurt my head ?? That's the same logic that the "insurance/medicare/etc..." argument uses. If the government doesn't think it should pay for some stuff then it shouldn't pay for it, not prevent you from doing it.

It is only nonsense if you refuse to engage in any health plan - either public or private - as rates for all participants escalate when some people are stupid.

It's like how policies adjust your rates if you smoke, fly a private aircraft, scuba dive, etc.

Convince insurance companies to work it out and charge you an appropriate premium for your recklessness and you can be as stupid about your safety as you like as far as I'm concerned.

It just precludes it being mandatory. Lots of people are wiling to help the unfortunate, and if they were allowed to keep more of their money they would undoubtedly choose to give more. A libertarian government could even be the agent of social welfare and medicaid, etc... It just couldn't be funded with mandatory taxes.

I don't know about that. I'd reckon that most people would think it was a good idea to give to the poor, but would forget to do so. I know I probably would be like "oh I'll do it later," and then forget to go look up a charity to give to.

I don't know about that. I'd reckon that most people would think it was a good idea to give to the poor, but would forget to do so. I know I probably would be like "oh I'll do it later," and then forget to go look up a charity to give to.

Just that it'd be a lot more than it is now. Plus, without the government bureaucracy involved, the money would go a lot further. If the giving was done at a more local level, then people would do their own policing of who is deserving and who is just being lazy, etc...

Just that it'd be a lot more than it is now. Plus, without the government bureaucracy involved, the money would go a lot further. If the giving was done at a more local level, then people would do their own policing of who is deserving and who is just being lazy, etc...

Oh yes, society has always thrived in times of economic adversity without a publicly funded social safety net. The Great Depression, after all, was a triumph for the resilience of the people where things worked out fantastically for all concerned.

No one is making those guys elect a killer. To be honest, I would think voting for such a person would be stupider than not wearing a seat belt, and therefore good for the human race as a whole.

I hate to be the one to bring Nazi's into things, but Hitler *was* elected...
Not to mention Stalin, and Chairman Mao....


Plus, an election only means something if you have a real choice, if you have a choice of voting for an idiot or a moron, it should hardly be considered a choice.

I would bet that if you asked people in 2004 who they would choose to put in the whitehouse if they could pick anyone hardly anyone would have said Bush *or* Kerry.

Just that it'd be a lot more than it is now. Plus, without the government bureaucracy involved, the money would go a lot further. If the giving was done at a more local level, then people would do their own policing of who is deserving and who is just being lazy, etc...

Corporate bureaucracy isn't any better than government bureaucracy. Anybody who has ever dealt with life insurance and health insurance corporations knows this.

No, it would be a lot less. Because instead of giving what I do in taxes (because it's pretty damn hard to forget to do your taxes and the work of finding who to give to is done by someone else), I'd be giving nothing, not since I wouldn't think the poor deserved help, but just because, like most people, I have a busy life, and finding charities to donate to and who to give to takes effort and time. If I had more money, I might have an easier time paying for things, but my life would not substantially change, at least not how I went about things.

You seem to be under the impression that if we have no taxes, magically everyone is going to diligently research charities and give generously after spending quite a bit of time determining who to give to. I'm sorry, but a vast number of people are well-meaning but rather absent-minded and more focused on immediate things that affect their own life.

It is only nonsense if you refuse to engage in any health plan - either public or private - as rates for all participants escalate when some people are stupid.

It's like how policies adjust your rates if you smoke, fly a private aircraft, scuba dive, etc.

Convince insurance companies to work it out and charge you an appropriate premium for your recklessness and you can be as stupid about your safety as you like as far as I'm concerned.

to enforce their will, I am sure there would have been lots of additions to policies (if they could figure out how to make them legal) that say they wouldn't pay if there was the slightest chance that a seatbelt would have made any difference. Insurance companies are *very* good at getting out of paying, and the government goes to great lengths to force them to pay (there are lots of exceptions they are not allowed to make for instance, in some states they have to pay life insurance in the case of suicide, in others they are allowed to exempt that from the policy). So if the government would let them they would add some fine print to the effect that they won't pay a dime if you can't prove you *were* wearing one (i.e. they would put the burden of proof on you even)

Oh yes, society has always thrived in times of economic adversity without a publicly funded social safety net. The Great Depression, after all, was a triumph for the resilience of the people where things worked out fantastically for all concerned.

Damn, you said it way better than I could.

You have the right to do what you want, as long as it hurts no one else without their explicit consent. Once that line is crossed, I do believe it's the state's duty to get involved.

Have you even read any of the previous posts? It has been made PLAINLY clear that you are putting others at risk by not wearing a seatbelt. Therefore according to that wonderful piece of paper that took 3 (?) Amendments before they bothered with human rights, you are stealing someone elses life.

AMK
xxx

Instead of telling me it's plainly clear, why don't you give me an example? How am I hurting anyone else by refusing to wear my seatbelt? Your insurance rates won't rise--only the rates of the narrowest demographic that the insurance company finds never wears their seatbelts.

Also, you can switch insurance companies. Or simply not have one--oh wait, that's illegal too.

On the one hand wearing seat belts is annoying and an invasion of privacy. On the other hand it'll save live and lessen injuries. Tough choice.

I find the "father-knows-best" and "nanny state" labels uncompelling. Minarchism, after all, lets one do as one wants until some rule is broken. Then "daddy" or "mommy, ie the state, intervenes to make sure citizens play nice and "spanks" those who don't. Its basically a kind of paternalism.

It can and has. See my previous post.

Anything not bolted down in a car could become a projectile from a cup of coffee to a GPS system on the dashboard. Sure people get ejected all the time when not wearing their seat belts but the cases of people getting killed by these projectiles are few and far between.

Seatbelt laws are fascist and anyone who promotes them is too.

Sigged.

Well I wouldn't call them fascist...just a whole "nanny state concept" I don't like.

Well I wouldn't call them fascist...just a whole "nanny state concept" I don't like.

I just sigged it because it was so hilarious.

LOL. Yeah see the problem is that everything is to the extremes with some people. I mean anyone who exhibits some sort of conservative beliefs will be cast into the fascism category eventually...

Instead of telling me it's plainly clear, why don't you give me an example? How am I hurting anyone else by refusing to wear my seatbelt? Your insurance rates won't rise--only the rates of the narrowest demographic that the insurance company finds never wears their seatbelts.

Also, you can switch insurance companies. Or simply not have one--oh wait, that's illegal too.

By propelling your body at high speed into the poor fucker in front of you, killing said fucker!
I don't know why you only seem to think harm can come from financial loss. I am talking about removing someones life. And yes, it does happen a lost more than you might think. I think I have only made that point about 6 times now, are you going to read this one?

By propelling your body at high speed into the poor fucker in front of you, killing said fucker!
I don't know why you only seem to think harm can come from financial loss. I am talking about removing someones life. And yes, it does happen a lost more than you might think. I think I have only made that point about 6 times now, are you going to read this one?

Maybe if you are in the back seat. I've never heard of someone going through the windshield and nailing someone.

Maybe if you are in the back seat. I've never heard of someone going through the windshield and nailing someone.

It's not as common, but there is a post earlier on in this with a video of said occurrance happening to rather grisly effect.
Thats why those laws are in place. To protect the human rights of the sensible from the selfish who only care about their own rights and not those of the people they are affecting.
G*d bless **erica!!!

I say we ban seatbelts and airbags. Instead, weld a 30 centimeter sharpened metal spike, preferably serrated, to the steering column that points at your chest. That ought to reduce car accidents. But until then, seatbelt laws a are pretty good thing to have around. As almost everyone pointed out, it's not a victimless crime, even if you're alone in your car and crash into a rock. Someone gotta swab your grey matter up. Think of the stains on their workwear.

I say we ban seatbelts and airbags. Instead, weld a 30 centimeter sharpened metal spike, preferably serrated, to the steering column that points at your chest. That ought to reduce car accidents. But until then, seatbelt laws a are pretty good thing to have around. As almost everyone pointed out, it's not a victimless crime, even if you're alone in your car and crash into a rock. Someone gotta swab your grey matter up. Think of the stains on their workwear.

Im sure some of the old style cars used to have that spike. It worked well back in my day...there were no yobs going around crashing just to get attention back then... ahh those were the days...

Actually, if you go back and read MY op, you'll see that this whole thread is about victimless crime. You put no one else in any danger by not buckling up or by taking drugs. You do put others in danger when you drive intoxicated but I'm not arguing against those laws. I'm arguing against government dictating how people live their lives, specifically what personal risks they can and cannot take.

I'll say what many people have already said and you do not seem to be listening to.

You CAN put others in danger by no wearing your seat belt. Do you want to deny this is true? You CAN put people in danger by you taking drugs. Do you also want to deny this is true? If you really can't see how this can all be true, then you cannot be helped at all, but belive me you are going to lose this debate.

For the record I am on your side, we must have personal freedoms, but it is within the goverments remit to ensure that my personal freedom does impinge upon yours, isnt it?

I argue against those laws, too.

It's not about danger, it's about harm. And you don't harm anyone by driving drunk. You harm people by crashing your car, and that should carry exceptionally high penalties to discourage people from driving drunk, but if you know back roads no one else uses and creep along them at 5 mph when you're drunk and never hurt anybody doing it, I don't see why this behaviour should be prohibited.

Plus, it would save us a bunch of money on enforcement because police wouldn't be going around trying to prevent behaviour. They'd just be reacting to it.

Bwhahahahha now I know you're just trolling!

Lucky you used it. Nobody is saying seatbelts aren't worthwhile, the argument is whether it is cool to strip people of their freedoms 'for their own good'.

No the argument is about selfish people trying to justify their selfishness, and crying 'human rights' while all the time advocating placeing their human rights above that of other road users.

Do you "own" yourself or does the government own you.

Either it's prohibited because you are a valuable asset of the government/community/whatever and you aren't yours to risk, or you *do* "own" yourself and have a right to determine your own fate and things like the choice of how much risk to that life is acceptable is yours to make.

Oh, and how many of you actually believe that states implement these laws to "save people" and how many believe they are implemented as revenue streams (because the know that more taxes will lose them their jobs).

Actually, no, it isn't that simple.

I, as a citizen with full political rights in a democratic State, OWN my government. The government belongs to me and to all other citizens, we pay for it because it's ours, we choose it because it's ours, and we can even choose to change it because it's ours, to reject via referendum the laws it passed, still because it's ours.

If the government says "you have to wear seatbelts", it's doing that on my - and every other citizen's - mandate. If I disagree, I will lobby or promote a referendum to delete that bill. It is my right to do so.

Lucky you used it. Nobody is saying seatbelts aren't worthwhile, the argument is whether it is cool to strip people of their freedoms 'for their own good'.People don't, and shouldn't, have the freedom to be a human projectile (in this instance).

The state is theoretically "the people", yes. The question is how far an individual person's rights can be abridged for the benefit of "the people".

I am merely a collection of individual cells, and if for some reason I needed to sacrifice a number of those cells (say, an appendix worth) for the common good, I wouldn't think twice about it, but when the "cells" are whole people with their own lives, the decision shouldn't be taken so lightly. The greatest atrocities in history have been carried out for "the good of the people".We aren't talking about sacrificing some cells, we are talking about doing something that alters the behavior of some cells.

Anything not bolted down in a car could become a projectile from a cup of coffee to a GPS system on the dashboard. Sure people get ejected all the time when not wearing their seat belts but the cases of people getting killed by these projectiles are few and far between.Why should we accept any risk of being killed by a human projectile if the way to remove the risk is to require something as small as a seatbelt?

Ahhh, taste that fresh air of freedom, taste that invigorating freedom from gravity as you fly through that glass into the air and splat your brains all over the pavement, hmmm it smells good!

Instead of telling me it's plainly clear, why don't you give me an example? How am I hurting anyone else by refusing to wear my seatbelt? Your insurance rates won't rise--only the rates of the narrowest demographic that the insurance company finds never wears their seatbelts.

Also, you can switch insurance companies. Or simply not have one--oh wait, that's illegal too.

There's no identifiable demographic of people who don't wear their seatbelts. Unless "idiots" is a demographic that insurance companies can measure.

And it still takes my tax dollars to scrape what remains of you off the freeway after your un-seatbelted ass flies through the windshield to splatter the ground with the bloody pulp that you become.

Actually, no, it isn't that simple.

I, as a citizen with full political rights in a democratic State, OWN my government. The government belongs to me and to all other citizens, we pay for it because it's ours, we choose it because it's ours, and we can even choose to change it because it's ours, to reject via referendum the laws it passed, still because it's ours.

If the government says "you have to wear seatbelts", it's doing that on my - and every other citizen's - mandate. If I disagree, I will lobby or promote a referendum to delete that bill. It is my right to do so.

This really is a wonderful description of how government relates to individual citizens. I wish I had written it myself (and no doubt will claim to have done so when I get a chance).

This really is a wonderful description of how government relates to individual citizens. I wish I had written it myself (and no doubt will claim to have done so when I get a chance).

Indeed! Ahhh plagiarism, the only true victimless crime!

Ahhh, taste that fresh air of freedom, taste that invigorating freedom from gravity as you fly through that glass into the air and splat your brains all over the pavement, hmmm it smells good!

As snarky as your comment is, people do in fact die for our freedom and people in fact die while exercising thier freedoms and neither group would have it absolutly any other way.

It seems to me we have a group of cowards that scream OMG DANGER DANGER there is a .00000000000001% chance that an unseatbelted human projectile might hit me. Please require that everyone be locked in padded rooms so that i may be safe. For the children.

Give me a break.You want government policies that force good things on you then start having the police arrive at your home at 6am with a shotgun for an enforced jog because its for your own good and for the good of the State. Sorry no place i feel like living.

As snarky as your comment is, people do in fact die for our freedom and people in fact die while exercising thier freedoms and neither group would have it absolutly any other way.

It seems to me we have a group of cowards that scream OMG DANGER DANGER there is a .00000000000001% chance that an unseatbelted human projectile might hit me. Please require that everyone be locked in padded rooms so that i may be safe. For the children.

Give me a break.You want government policies that force good things on you then start having the police arrive at your home at 6am with a shotgun for an enforced jog because its for your own good and for the good of the State. Sorry no place i feel like living.

Heheh and again, your'e funny!

I know that there is no such thing as common sense, but come on, really use just a little bit of it. It's not a bad law, it does more good than harm, and isn't it the goverments job to look after us?

Ohhh and when was the last time a copper with a shot gun, stuck it in your face for not belting up?

Why should we accept any risk of being killed by a human projectile if the way to remove the risk is to require something as small as a seatbelt?

Because the state forcing you to do something against your will isnt small. Nor should it be ok for the state to do so just cause its only asking for "just a little slavery"

Because the state forcing you to do something against your will isnt small. Nor should it be ok for the state to do so just cause its only asking for "just a little slavery"

Bwahahah hey why don't you just rebel, stop paying your taxes?

Because the state forcing you to do something against your will isnt small. Nor should it be ok for the state to do so just cause its only asking for "just a little slavery"
Damn right. Just because The Man wants you to drive 25 mph in a school zone doesn't mean you should surrender your precious freedoms!

Heheh and again, your'e funny!

I know that there is no such thing as common sense, but come on, really use just a little bit of it. It's not a bad law, it does more good than harm, and isn't it the goverments job to look after us?

Yes its the governments job to look after you, so i hope you get your sleep tonight the forced police jogging patrol will be at your house first thing tomorrow morning. There is absolutly no question that this will be for your own good. <eyeroll>

Ohhh and when was the last time a copper with a shot gun, stuck it in your face for not belting up?

No actually what they do is far worse. Lets see, im guessing my seatbelt ticket will be roughly $250 after court fees fine etc. For the sake of arguement say im making around the Federal minimum wage of $6/hr. I would have to be an indentured servant to the state for 42 hours BEFORE taxes, so after taxes lets say i have to work 52 hours in essence in slavery to the state all because of something i did that harmed NOONE. Now THATS crazy.

Damn right. Just because The Man wants you to drive 25 mph in a school zone doesn't mean you should surrender your precious freedoms!

Ridiculous analogy, i expect better from you Bottle. Speeding thru school zones kills children. No wearing a seatbelt poses no risk to anyone but myself. You know better then that.

Ahhh, taste that fresh air of freedom, taste that invigorating freedom from gravity as you fly through that glass into the air and splat your brains all over the pavement, hmmm it smells good!

Man I really wish I could find a clip from my driver's ed class because it is hilarious for its sheer absurdity.

A simple green humanesque character is driving along then a telephone poll comes out of nowhere and he flies out of his front wind shield in superman position for a few screens, then flies over a fence, goes for a few more screens and then lands nosedives into a fucking boulder the size of his car.

No one else is hurt only if you have no family and no one gives a s**t about you or you don't crash into someone who has to live the rest of their lives haunted by the knowledge of being involved in your death.


Wrong. An individual's family and friends do not own him. He is entitled to take whatever risks he wants with his own life, since it is his own life.

Victimless crime is a myth, there is always a social cost, your forgetting that you are a member of an interdependent community, and you have a social responsibility to that community, that means abiding by that communities' laws etc.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as "social responsibility".

The individual properly exists solely for his own sake, to serve his own rational self-interest.

Actually, no, it isn't that simple.

I, as a citizen with full political rights in a democratic State, OWN my government. The government belongs to me and to all other citizens, we pay for it because it's ours, we choose it because it's ours, and we can even choose to change it because it's ours, to reject via referendum the laws it passed, still because it's ours.

If the government says "you have to wear seatbelts", it's doing that on my - and every other citizen's - mandate. If I disagree, I will lobby or promote a referendum to delete that bill. It is my right to do so.

Except the rights of the individual are not subject to the will of the collective.

The form of government is irrelevant; the legitimacy of a government act is determined by its substance.

People don't, and shouldn't, have the freedom to be a human projectile (in this instance).

We aren't talking about sacrificing some cells, we are talking about doing something that alters the behavior of some cells.

Why should we accept any risk of being killed by a human projectile if the way to remove the risk is to require something as small as a seatbelt?

Because it improperly infringes upon the rights of those who can go without seatbelts without that ever being a problem.

Government should only punish the perpetrator of coercive or harmful force after the fact. It should not act to prevent it in the first place, because that can only be done by infringing upon the rights of those who are able to engage in the acts in question without hurting anyone.

Except the rights of the individual are not subject to the will of the collective.

In a democracy they are.

In a democracy they are.

Nope.

Since individual rights are metaphysically prior to government, the form of government is irrelevant.

Yes its the governments job to look after you, so i hope you get your sleep tonight the forced police jogging patrol will be at your house first thing tomorrow morning. There is absolutly no question that this will be for your own good. <eyeroll>



No actually what they do is far worse. Lets see, im guessing my seatbelt ticket will be roughly $250 after court fees fine etc. For the sake of arguement say im making around the Federal minimum wage of $6/hr. I would have to be an indentured servant to the state for 42 hours BEFORE taxes, so after taxes lets say i have to work 52 hours in essence in slavery to the state all because of something i did that harmed NOONE. Now THATS crazy.

Well damn me, mountian/molehill. So then why should I expect armed police at my door then? Its a totaly false analogy man.

By your logic, all and every laws mean us giving up our freedoms, no no sorry that is wrong, I mean all laws that the individual does not agree with.

And therein lays the root of your dilemeer. Because you do not agree with it, it does not mean that it is wrong.

You do know though what the real crazy thing is? If you had obeyed the law, you wouldn't now be whining about how much cash you have to pay out, ohhh shame. Now I understand you're a grown man? So suck it up man, take your fine, be a grown man, not a whinging kid.

Ridiculous analogy, i expect better from you Bottle. Speeding thru school zones kills children. No wearing a seatbelt poses no risk to anyone but myself. You know better then that.

And again no it doesn't. Have you not read, or just ignored all of the posts telling you this?

Nope.

Since individual rights are metaphysically prior to government, the form of government is irrelevant.

Too much Nietzsche seems to have addled your brain.

Wrong. An individual's family and friends do not own him. He is entitled to take whatever risks he wants with his own life, since it is his own life.

Yes but if you die, does that not hurt your mother?