NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

If you are a Levayn Satanist perphaps, if though you are a normal memebr of sociaty then no, you are sooooo wrong.

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.


When somebody has died you mean? Rather than introduce sensible measures to protect it's citizens from harm or death? That seems inhumane to me.

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.

Someone's doesn't know how insurance rates are set. Insurance companies look at what cost them the more.

If more sports car get in accidents than minivan, sports car cost more to insure. If 10 motocycle cost more when they crash than 100 sports car when they crash, motocycle cost more to insure.

And if some dumbass does not wear a seatbelt and the company has to replace a windshield that would not be destroyed if the seatbelt was worn, then next year's premium will calculate the fact that those types of cars and those types of drivers cost more to insure.

So, yeah, my premium is dependant on your safety. Otherwise, it would cost the same for a man to be insured than a woman and any type of cars would cost the same. That is not the case.

If you are a Levayn Satanist perphaps, if though you are a normal memebr of sociaty then no, you are sooooo wrong.

What's wrong with being a LaVeyan Satanist? It's just as sensible as any of the mainstream religions.

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.



Sure.. but people might just get married earlier eh?

Laws like that already exist, for example; vaccinations. (though I think there are ways to be exempt)

What's wrong with being a LaVeyan Satanist? It's just as sensible as any of the mainstream religions.

Ohh no you're not are you?

Too much Nietzsche seems to have addled your brain.

If only it was Nietzsche, then it might be interesting.

Unfortunately it is Rand that has done it.

Ohh no you're not are you?

I'm an atheist. However...

The Nine Satanic Statements
The Nine Satanic Statements are to outline what Satan within the Church of Satan Symbolizes. They are:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!

2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!

3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!

4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it instead of love wasted on ingrates!

5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!

6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!

8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!


[edit] The Nine Satanic Sins
These are similar to the seven sins within Christianity.

1.Stupidity

2.Pretentiousness

3.Solipsism

4.Self-deceit

5.Herd Conformity

6.Lack of Perspective

7.Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies

8.Counterproductive Pride

9.Lack of Aesthetics


[edit] The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
Similar to the Christian ten commandments.

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Satan#The_Main_Texts_of_Satanism

I understand you may disagree, but most of those tenets have sensible roots in logic and common sense, in my opinion. Regardless, Satanism is certainly a long shot from a religion full of crazies. No more so than Christianity. We do have a few Satanists around here, if I recall correctly, and they seem sane enough.

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.

Yea and if the Danish had only sucked it up and obeyed the law, Ann Frank wouldnt have had a place to stay. Oh i forgot they did suck it up and took thier punishment. Execution. From an opressive State. I dont like opressive states cause you never know when and where they will stop. Take a peek at the Patriot Act sometime if you think it cant happen here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nope.

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

I'm waiting for the day you back up any of these ridiculous assertions, rather then just, well... asserting them as true.

Yea and if the Danish had only sucked it up and obeyed the law, Ann Frank wouldnt have had a place to stay. Oh i forgot they did suck it up and took thier punishment. Execution. From an opressive State. I dont like opressive states cause you never know when and where they will stop. Take a peek at the Patriot Act sometime if you think it cant happen here.

"Dutch, Danish. It's all a bit of a grey area really."

(What a co-worker actually said)

When somebody has died you mean? Rather than introduce sensible measures to protect it's citizens from harm or death? That seems inhumane to me.

I fail to see how violating the sacred individual rights of those who can go without causing physical harm to others can ever be considered "sensible."

I'm an atheist. However...

I understand you may disagree, but most of those tenets have sensible roots in logic and common sense, in my opinion. Regardless, Satanism is certainly a long shot from a religion full of crazies. No more so than Christianity. We do have a few Satanists around here, if I recall correctly, and they seem sane enough.


Ohhh I know all about that, and I know many Satanist, and all of them to a man(and woman) have basicly been wankers. I call the whole sphere ego wanking, I don't like it, I don't like them. I have yet to meet a nice one.


Although I have had some fun with them in the past, so I guess it's not all bad.:D

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.

This is obvious to anyone with any self thinking intellect at all. Clearly there is a reason OTHER than to protect us that the government is doing this.

One obvious reason would be to support illegal drugs. Since these laws are more effective at doing that than anything else. After all, if we made drugs legal it would destroy a large number of jobs (criminal jobs, but jobs), and make a lot of wealthy people angry! Plus it would dry up markets. The entire youth market would go down the drain quickly. Ask any 10 year old today whether he thinks it would be easier to get pot, cocaine, nicotine, or alcohol? Sure there will be those who couldn't get either one, but for the majority of kids it's MUCH easier to get illegal drugs than the legal ones.

After all, it's no more illegal to sell to kids than to sell to adults.

A less obvious reason, but still out there, is to support legal drugs. They would then have competition. Especially with pot, which is apparently an awesome med for multiple issues. How are the drug companies going to sell new and expensive drugs when a perfectly viable, extremely well tested one is available that can be easily grown?

And just as important, perhaps moreso, is simple politics. They've been lying about how horrid drugs are for so long that they can't go back on their positions. It's an easy mob mentality subject. The ignorant and fanatics will rally behind "anti-drugs" mindlessly, they don't need or want facts. Thus over 60 billion a year is spent in a completely useless 'war on drugs', a war that has, over it's course, increased the total amount of illegal drugs bought and sold in this country by hundreds of percent since it's start!

Ahem. Ok, I admit I haven't read any one else's post/reply on the subject yet... Let's see what the masses here have to say!

Ahem. Ok, I admit I haven't read any one else's post/reply on the subject yet... Let's see what the masses here have to say!

Its clear you didnt even read the TITLE! :P

Yea and if the Danish had only sucked it up and obeyed the law, Ann Frank wouldnt have had a place to stay. Oh i forgot they did suck it up and took thier punishment. Execution. From an opressive State. I dont like opressive states cause you never know when and where they will stop. Take a peek at the Patriot Act sometime if you think it cant happen here.

Mountian/molehill. I do get it really I do, I'm quite the little revolutionary myself at times. But the bear truth here is you broke the law, you don't want to pay the fine, and you are whinging about it.

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.

You know full well that it's not that simple. In the case of the seatbelt law (and I'm coming in late and didn't intend to comment until I saw this nonsense, so I might be restating things) your unwillingness to wear a seatbelt has an effect on me in that you are using up resources that I have to pay for to scoop you off the road, tying up services that I might need while they pick you off the hood of your car, etc.

So it is in my self interest to make sure that you wear your belt so that I am not covering the cost, both financial and in loss of services, of your self interest. Since you're not an island, self interest is a negotiation in a society.

So it is in my self interest to make sure that you wear your belt so that I am not covering the cost, both financial and in loss of services, of your self interest. Since you're not an island, self interest is a negotiation in a society.

If i can prove to you that your not in any way covering the cost financially or losing any services from me not wearing my seatbelt, would you then agree that the seatbelt restriction should be removed from that person?

I fail to see how violating the sacred individual rights of those who can go without causing physical harm to others can ever be considered "sensible."

As you have failed to read any of the thread that deals exactly with how not wareing your seatbelt can cause harm to others?

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.


Righty-o. Which is why we need to say "fuck you and goodbye" to the programs that leave society at large with the burden of the individual.

After all, it's no more illegal to sell to kids than to sell to adults.



Light hangovers mean I make half assed responses to things I don't fully read, apparently. Especially here where I support at least a limited legalization of some drugs...

But I believe it might actually be 'more' illegal to sell to kids in that it carries a stiffer penalty and actually be a different crime all together. I could be proven wrong, but I'd have to be proven (granting that my lazy ass doesn't feel like looking it up right now)

If i can prove to you that your not in any way covering the cost financially or losing any services from me not wearing my seatbelt, would you then agree that the seatbelt restriction should be removed from that person?

If we could control all the conditions of things we could justify all kinds of crazy crap.

Well well well, what an interesting thread. Though I wonder, at what length do people stop reading the entire discussion? Have all the people who are posting on this page actually read the entire 17 pages?

As we all know, Freedom isn't free. Since a law requiring seatbelt use is clearly a restriction of freedom (however minor) we must ask; what is it's price? It would appear that the freedom to not wear a seatbelt costs many many lives.

Anyone who thinks people should die to secure such an insignificant freedom is just.... OK, no, I won't start a flame war, I'm sure you get my drift.


As an aside, I think an interesting topic would be "Freedom as a society VS Freedom as an individual". This seems to be at the heart of many such conflicts as this. But another day...

If only it was Nietzsche, then it might be interesting.

Unfortunately it is Rand that has done it.

Oh a fifth rate novelist - that explains it.

Oh, and Satanism is just another set of normative claims that its adherents must abide by; it's just a sort of egoist Ten Commandments.

I prefer philosophical Taoism, if anything. It's not normative; just a way of looking at the world.

Good luck living in your Unibomber style shack...

Thanks! It'll be done come November.

What was your address again?

:cool:

Righty-o. Which is why we need to say "fuck you and goodbye" to the programs that leave society at large with the burden of the individual.

Good luck living in your Unibomber style shack...

I'd like you to try.

Don't forget to count the cost of the police at the scene of the accident. The cost of the theft that wasn't stopped because the police was at the scene of the accident.

The cost of the ambulance, the cost of the life that wasn't saved because the ambulance was at your accident instead of theirs.

The cost in lost wages of all those people stuck in traffic because of your accident.

And those I can't think of off the top of my head.

Well, the seatbelts don't prevent accidents, so people would still be stuck in traffic and police would still be at the scene. Ambulance point is fair enough though I suppose.

If i can prove to you that your not in any way covering the cost financially or losing any services from me not wearing my seatbelt, would you then agree that the seatbelt restriction should be removed from that person?

I'd like you to try.

Don't forget to count the cost of the police at the scene of the accident. The cost of the theft that wasn't stopped because the police was at the scene of the accident.

The cost of the ambulance, the cost of the life that wasn't saved because the ambulance was at your accident instead of theirs.

The cost in lost wages of all those people stuck in traffic because of your accident.

And those I can't think of off the top of my head.

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.

Ah, but that's a different issue. A law governing how you should treat your child (think for him, buckle him up! It's Common Sense People!!!) is extremely different from a law treating you as a child.


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


Totally. A different issue, but totally.


Wow. Thread too fast... I stopped around 6

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.


THIS would be a fine approach. I, unfortunately, have not seen any of the laws approach the issue from this angle. The current simply making it illegal to not wear seatbelts is completely different however.


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.

The harm is in the intent to control, it's in the attitude that YOU deserve to decide what I might to. Hell, when it comes down to the actual issue itself I won't drive with anyone in my car not wearing a seatbelt. But that, my friends, is a different matter entirely from making a law. It's not what this law is about that makes it so very, very wrong, it's the attitude of the lawmaker, the message inherent in the law.

Oh, I'm finding it extremely amusing reading people who are saying "you owe the country taxes!", blatantly and openly saying "you're a slave, we own you, you WILL do what WE SAY!"

And that is the problem. To fail to question it seems odd to me. When anyone tells you that you MUST do something, even something obvious and for your own good, you should rear up in protest. It's wrong to do something because you have been made to do it. At that point you've devolved to less than an animal.


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

I'm going to go one step further and say that these are morality laws, that morality laws are in themselves immoral... I say they're not only fascist but also evil. Imposing your religious, your beliefs, or your morality on someone else is the ultimate evil in my opinion.


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


Apathy is a secondary evil. Perhaps not as great, but more prevalent and therefore worse in many ways. This is tantamount to saying: "Ok, so maybe it's wrong, but you shouldn't have the right to care" .

Everyone is always looking for the for the Big Evil, but it's the banality of evil that is so insidious.

As you have failed to read any of the thread that deals exactly with how not wareing your seatbelt can cause harm to others?

Except, I haven't; you're ignoring what I said earlier, which is that the fact that an act has the potential to cause harm to others is no reason to prohibit it in the first place, because it improperly violates the rights of those who can engage in it without causing harm to others.

Punish those who hurt others after the fact.

Please pay attention next time. I grow tired of repeating myself.

You know full well that it's not that simple. In the case of the seatbelt law (and I'm coming in late and didn't intend to comment until I saw this nonsense, so I might be restating things) your unwillingness to wear a seatbelt has an effect on me in that you are using up resources that I have to pay for to scoop you off the road, tying up services that I might need while they pick you off the hood of your car, etc.
That assumes that it is the proper role of government to provide such services, which is blatantly incorrect.

Well, the seatbelts don't prevent accidents, so people would still be stuck in traffic and police would still be at the scene. Ambulance point is fair enough though I suppose.

And the cost of the Ambulance is born by the patient. So ALL of his points are off.

Legalization of drugs means the ability to regulate and control them.

That would be unacceptable, as it would violate the sacred right of the individual to produce and offer what he wishes under whatever terms he wishes.

Its clear you didnt even read the TITLE! :P

Hey now, sure I did.. and I voted. Two issues were mentioned, one poll. I made a second post on the next issue... Hey, gimme a minute here!

Light hangovers mean I make half assed responses to things I don't fully read, apparently. Especially here where I support at least a limited legalization of some drugs...

But I believe it might actually be 'more' illegal to sell to kids in that it carries a stiffer penalty and actually be a different crime all together. I could be proven wrong, but I'd have to be proven (granting that my lazy ass doesn't feel like looking it up right now)

Well it's a lot more illegal to sell alcohol to kids than to adults. Legalization of drugs means the ability to regulate and control them.

I've read the current laws in my area anyhow, and there isn't a significant difference between selling to adults or children. And indeed there have been a number of statistical studies that show kids have a much easier time getting illegal drugs than alcohol or even nicotine. Of course, in the end statistics CAN say whatever you want, but a more informal study of just asking adults about their childhood experiences has shown me that those studies were accurate during the time-period of the past 5-15 years, for people currently in my general area.

Except, I haven't; you're ignoring what I said earlier, which is that the fact that an act has the potential to cause harm to others is no reason to prohibit it in the first place, because it improperly violates the rights of those who can engage in it without causing harm to others.

Punish those who hurt others after the fact.

Please pay attention next time. I grow tired of repeating myself.

So then, and I'll say it again, you deem any such laws restrictive on our personal freedoms?

Well, the seatbelts don't prevent accidents, so people would still be stuck in traffic and police would still be at the scene. Ambulance point is fair enough though I suppose.

The bigger the accident, the longer it takes for all those people to leave and for the traffic to subside.

So if I get in an accident wearing my seatbelt, I might be able to walk to the hospital whereas if I don't wear my seatbelt more complication ensues and more time is spent at the scene.

I guess he has to calculate that in his little proof instead.

And the cost of the Ambulance is born by the patient. So ALL of his points are off.

Not everywhere. Not all the cost. You don't pay for time spent and the wages of the driver. You pay a flat rate.

So put that in your little calculation.

That would be unacceptable, as it would violate the sacred right of the individual to produce and offer what he wishes under whatever terms he wishes.

From where does this 'sacred right' come?

OK i did this before and i shall do it again because people dont actually read posts from 4 pages ago.

My situation.

I drive alone. I do not have health insurance. I do have the ability to self fund my own medical care should i have a catastrophic injury. This ability is commensurate with the payment caps of a typical health policy. I also was a volunteer fireman for 5 years.

Now what specific damage am i incurring to society if i drive without a seatbelt? I drive alone so my body isnt a guided missle to anybody inside the car, nor has anyone shown any compelling evidence that people are being injured or killed from human projectiles outside of the car.
I will self pay for any and all medical bills so im not adding to the burden of any health priemium holders. In the off chance that my red skid mark causes police and EMTs to spend an extra 10 minutes scraping my body off the road, well i was a volunteer in the system for 5 years so my debt in that respect, even on the tiny chance that it would even happen, is marked paid as well.
So why again is the State sending me into involuntary servitude to pay a fine for doing nothing harmful to anyone?

Don't forget to count the cost of the police at the scene of the accident. The cost of the theft that wasn't stopped because the police was at the scene of the accident.


Well, to be fair there's no need to include this. They're on salary and would be working anyhow. And for that matter the would be at the scene of your accident no matter your seatbelt status.


The cost of the ambulance, the cost of the life that wasn't saved because the ambulance was at your accident instead of theirs.

This ambulance would almost certainly be at the scene too, so ignore it as well. You CAN, on the other hand, add in costs at the hospital if you live. Don't forget to factor in the difference due to the fact that you're more likely to live if you wear the belt, so that in many cases you'll be taking up more hospital care worker's and emergency personnel's time if you wear the belt than if you die.


The cost in lost wages of all those people stuck in traffic because of your accident.

Oh, and the frustration involved!! Of course, if you are alive in there it's likely that you'll take up even more time on the road, as it's more important how EMS treats a live one than how they treat a corpse.

Not everywhere. Not all the cost. You don't pay for time spent and the wages of the driver. You pay a flat rate.

So put that in your little calculation.

LMAO are you even serious? You pay the ambulance company $600 for the pickup and somehow out of that $600 the Ambulance company manages to pay thier drivers and employees $12 an hour out of it. Amazing huh.

How come 95% of NSG supports legalising prostitution and at least a significant majority support legalising drugs, on the grounds of an individual's right to control of their own body, but it's evenly split on seatbelts?

So then, and I'll say it again, you deem any such laws restrictive on our personal freedoms?

It is a gross violation of individual rights.

It is absolutely unacceptable to pre-emptively prohibit an act simply because it has the potential to cause physical harm to others. All government should do is punish after the fact those who actually do cause such harm; anything else is the violation of the rights of those who can engage in it without hurting anyone else.

OK i did this before and i shall do it again because people dont actually read posts from 4 pages ago.

My situation.

I drive alone. I do not have health insurance. I do have the ability to self fund my own medical care should i have a catastrophic injury. This ability is commensurate with the payment caps of a typical health policy. I also was a volunteer fireman for 5 years.

Now what specific damage am i incurring to society if i drive without a seatbelt? I drive alone so my body isnt a guided missle to anybody inside the car, nor has anyone shown any compelling evidence that people are being injured or killed from human projectiles outside of the car.
I will self pay for any and all medical bills so im not adding to the burden of any health priemium holders. In the off chance that my red skid mark causes police and EMTs to spend an extra 10 minutes scraping my body off the road, well i was a volunteer in the system for 5 years so my debt in that respect, even on the tiny chance that it would even happen, is marked paid as well.
So why again is the State sending me into involuntary servitude to pay a fine for doing nothing harmful to anyone?

So in essence you want the law to say seatbealt are mandatory unless you are a retired volunteer fireman who doesn't pay insurance and always drive alone on deserted routes and that has the money to repair whatever he crashes into.

Call me a dumbass but I think it's a bit too specific for my taste. I didn't like the Terry Schiavo law and I don't like this one either.

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?

We do? If that's the case, why are so many passengers killed in drunk driving accidents? What about those passengers who cannot determine that their driver is unsafe behind the wheel either because they are too young or inexperienced to recognize impairment or are impaired themselves? I don't know how many times -- looking back on it -- I rode home in my dad's car from some company picnic or other function when his blood alcohol level made him illegal behind the wheel. Was I supposed to walk home as a kid from dozens of miles away at night?

Determining who's buckled up is simple -- "click" -- but unless the driver's been sentenced to one, most cars don't have breathalyzer ignition locks.

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.

Drug use is ONLY victimless in the same sense that alcohol use or tobacco use is ONLY victimless -- when nobody else's life, liberty or property is threatened. Guy getting lit on his couch at home? Victimless...until he drives or works while stoned, makes it a chronic habit that interferes with his job, his family, etc.

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.

Always? Every time? 'Cause I tell ya, in all the times I've used alcohol -- a drug -- I've never gone nuts and attacked another person. Same thing with weed and tobacco. There are drugs which are far more prone to produce chemical psychosis (PCP being the classic example), but your blanket statement is wholly incorrect.

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.

Are you fucking KIDDING me? You're willing to risk your life and the lives of unknown others just because you made it home safely a few times? The whole premise you've put out there presupposes that the road somehow is yours and yours alone and that how you move on it is COMPLETELY independent of other drivers and RULES -- LAWS which you agreed to abide by when you applied for your...wait for it...LICENSE. I can't believe that this phrase has been bled out of Drivers' Ed. courses, but using the roads in a vehicle is a privilege, not a right.

THUS -- prevention is in the best interest of ensuring the system of road, highway and freeway infrastructure works at its best. Why? Because it's what we as society paid for when we elected the people who pass bills like the Interstate Freeway Act. If it's no longer something we want, then we as a society need to elect people who agree with us and reverse or restructure legislation. So put on your seatbelt, all you lazy Libertarian jackasses. Put 'em on get a shovel, a grader and some asphalt and build your own damn roads.

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.

:rolleyes: Yeah. That's such a shitty anaolgy I don't know where to start. You're CHOOSING to hit yourself on the head (for reasons that seem like you've done quite enough of that already). For the Nth fucking time -- IT IS NOT ONLY A RISK TO YOU. You agreed to abise by the laws governing the operation of motor vehicles on public roads the minute you got your license. If you don't wear your belt and your ejected body causes another accident (AND NO, that's not JUST by hitting another person, for fuck's sake, I have NO idea why this thread let THAT argument last more than 10 seconds), it's by hitting another vehicle (lots of those around on a busy road, see), or putting your carcass in the way of another vehicle, which, either by habit or by surprise, will probably swerve to avoid it, potentially widening the scope and severity of the initial collision. Jeez -- why is that so hard to grasp?

Again, buckle up or build your own roads.

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.

Not as few and far between as you might think. Unbolted speakers (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003815732_paralyze01e.html), for example. No, he wasn't killed, but paralysis is perhaps even more expensive and requires another's resources be used to rehabilitate or care for the person long term. Expensive.

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.

Again -- you're a psychic? You see the future? You KNOW FOR A FACT that not wearing your seatbelt is NEVER going to be a problem? You're full of shit. The point of prevention is to REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD of there being a problem. Your RIGHTS are NOT being infringed upon, for the love of fuck, because there is NO RIGHT TO DRIVE. This has been explained over and over again, and yet posters like you CONTINUE to miss it. You drive with a license, that means you AGREE to the LAWS and RULES that REGULATE the roads and which, for your convenience or not, are designed with PREVENTION of collisions and loss of life and limb from collisions in mind. One more bleeding time -- you no likey the laws, you try and get them repealed. If enough people agree, it can be done. Good luck with that.

Someone's doesn't know how insurance rates are set. Insurance companies look at what cost them the more.

If more sports car get in accidents than minivan, sports car cost more to insure. If 10 motocycle cost more when they crash than 100 sports car when they crash, motocycle cost more to insure.

And if some dumbass does not wear a seatbelt and the company has to replace a windshield that would not be destroyed if the seatbelt was worn, then next year's premium will calculate the fact that those types of cars and those types of drivers cost more to insure.

So, yeah, my premium is dependant on your safety. Otherwise, it would cost the same for a man to be insured than a woman and any type of cars would cost the same. That is not the case.

HALLELUJAH, the sweet smell of reason. THANK YOU.

Yea and if the Danish had only sucked it up and obeyed the law, Ann Frank wouldnt have had a place to stay. Oh i forgot they did suck it up and took thier punishment. Execution. From an opressive State. I dont like opressive states cause you never know when and where they will stop. Take a peek at the Patriot Act sometime if you think it cant happen here.

Good grief. Yet another person who jumps right to the Nazis and the Holocaust for an analogy so far out of proportion, it makes Reuben Stoddard look like Halle Berry.

Please see the rest of this post for exactly why your rights are not being oppressed and why it isn't fascism.

I swear, I shouldn't let so much overt misconception and downright deliberate ignorance get my Irish up, but it just isn't that hard to grasp, and some of these people are wearing teflon gloves coated in graphite and axle grease. Stylish, but woefully useless.

From where does this 'sacred right' come?

The fact that man is a creature of reason rather than instinct.

How come 95% of NSG supports legalising prostitution and at least a significant majority support legalising drugs, on the grounds of an individual's right to control of their own body, but it's evenly split on seatbelts?

I'm willing to bet because wearing a seatbelt is such a good idea, and not wearing one is such a very BAD idea, that people support it in spite of the fact that, at it's core, it's still an issue of the government telling you what to think, and treating you like a child or a slave... It is to be protected, and not to be allowed to think on it's own or make it's own decisions.

The fact that man is a creature of reason rather than instinct.

Could have fooled me.

Again -- you're a psychic? You see the future? You KNOW FOR A FACT that not wearing your seatbelt is NEVER going to be a problem?
That is not what I said. Please do not build strawmen.
You're full of shit.
Calm down.

The point of prevention is to REDUCE THE LIKELIHOOD of there being a problem.
That's irrelevant; people should only be punished when they've actually hurt someone.

Your RIGHTS are NOT being infringed upon,
Yes, they are.
for the love of fuck, because there is NO RIGHT TO DRIVE.
Yes, there is.

I'm aware that governments tend to assert otherwise; they are wrong.

One more bleeding time -- you no likey the laws, you try and get them repealed. If enough people agree, it can be done. Good luck with that.
I don't have to; I am under no moral obligation to obey an unjust and illegitimate law, and the state is morally obligated to refrain from making or enforcing such laws.

OK i did this before and i shall do it again because people dont actually read posts from 4 pages ago.

My situation.

I drive alone. I do not have health insurance. I do have the ability to self fund my own medical care should i have a catastrophic injury. This ability is commensurate with the payment caps of a typical health policy. I also was a volunteer fireman for 5 years.

Now what specific damage am i incurring to society if i drive without a seatbelt? I drive alone so my body isnt a guided missle to anybody inside the car, nor has anyone shown any compelling evidence that people are being injured or killed from human projectiles outside of the car.
I will self pay for any and all medical bills so im not adding to the burden of any health priemium holders. In the off chance that my red skid mark causes police and EMTs to spend an extra 10 minutes scraping my body off the road, well i was a volunteer in the system for 5 years so my debt in that respect, even on the tiny chance that it would even happen, is marked paid as well.
So why again is the State sending me into involuntary servitude to pay a fine for doing nothing harmful to anyone?
First of all, considering the gap between the injury that you can incure with a selt belt and without, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that you can actually shoulder the full cost of all potential injuries without it being a pretty decent hardship, not to mention that the worse the injury the higher the cost and the greater likelyhood that your income will be effected in a manner that would make your boast even less believable.

Thing is, I could believe that it is reasonable to assume that save only the most extreme cases, you would be able to shoulder the cost of injury that would occur if you wore your seatbelt.

Second, time doesn't really work that way. Your five years at the volunteer fire department isn't going to get that fireman who is spending the extra hour(s) scrapping you off the pavement to me any quicker, not to mention the administrative costs that are added (in how they have to deal with it) when the crash is lethal instead of dealing with minor injury.

Someone mentioned the traffic thing, which is actually worse when the accident is lethal versus when it is a walk away.

The fact is that you can think you exist in a bubble all you want. It won't make it real.

So in essence you want the law to say seatbealt are mandatory unless you are a retired volunteer fireman who doesn't pay insurance and always drive alone on deserted routes and that has the money to repair whatever he crashes into.


Its my life what am i supposed to do? Specific or not these are the issues im dealing with in real life. So again why am i being punished?

I'm willing to bet because wearing a seatbelt is such a good idea, and not wearing one is such a very BAD idea, that people support it in spite of the fact that, at it's core, it's still an issue of the government telling you what to think, and treating you like a child or a slave... It is to be protected, and not to be allowed to think on it's own or make it's own decisions.

I haven't read the thread, but I'm not sure if anyone's brought up that seatbelt laws arguably increase road deaths by lulling people into a false sense of security.

Anyway, even so, something like smoking kills several hundred times more than not wearing seatbelts do. Smoking is a far worse idea than not wearing a seatbelt, yet many people on this forum will (with at least some justification, in my opinion) jump to defend their rights to inhale poisonous chemicals. Why seatbelt laws?

Except, I haven't; you're ignoring what I said earlier, which is that the fact that an act has the potential to cause harm to others is no reason to prohibit it in the first place, because it improperly violates the rights of those who can engage in it without causing harm to others.

Punish those who hurt others after the fact.

Please pay attention next time. I grow tired of repeating myself.

So do I. How many have to die before prevention becomes something you'll support? I know! We could have some kind of test for people to take before they drive on publicly-funded roads to prove they can "engage in" driving "without causing harm to others". Oh wait...:headbang:

That would be unacceptable, as it would violate the sacred right of the individual to produce and offer what he wishes under whatever terms he wishes.

Sacred? Are you into the sacramental peyote?

OK i did this before and i shall do it again because people dont actually read posts from 4 pages ago.

My situation.

I drive alone. I do not have health insurance. I do have the ability to self fund my own medical care should i have a catastrophic injury. This ability is commensurate with the payment caps of a typical health policy. I also was a volunteer fireman for 5 years.

Now what specific damage am i incurring to society if i drive without a seatbelt? I drive alone so my body isnt a guided missle to anybody inside the car, nor has anyone shown any compelling evidence that people are being injured or killed from human projectiles outside of the car.
I will self pay for any and all medical bills so im not adding to the burden of any health priemium holders. In the off chance that my red skid mark causes police and EMTs to spend an extra 10 minutes scraping my body off the road, well i was a volunteer in the system for 5 years so my debt in that respect, even on the tiny chance that it would even happen, is marked paid as well.
So why again is the State sending me into involuntary servitude to pay a fine for doing nothing harmful to anyone?

Your situation in inherently flawed because you presume you know how severe your collision will be and how much it will all wind up costing or continue to cost if paralysis or other chronic care injuries are involved. Even if you could see all that ahead of time, you're ONE PERSON. Nobody is above the law, no matter what the justification, the office, the time volunteered as a civil servant -- nobody. That's the social contract. Your bullshit "I'm rich" argument is maid of Class Warfare-brand fail.

Projectiles can cause other accidents. Shit, having to deal with adverse G-forces in an emergency maneuver without a seatbelt can cause a damn collision. Face it -- you're gonna have to deal with the two seconds of cllicking your seatbelt. And thank you in advance for being so gracious as to comply.

How come 95% of NSG supports legalising prostitution and at least a significant majority support legalising drugs, on the grounds of an individual's right to control of their own body, but it's evenly split on seatbelts?

Maybe because if I hire a hooker, I'm not doing so within a system that involves millions of other moving vehicles? Maybe because if I'm not engaged in any behavior requiring sobriety to engage in safely or responsibly, that's okay, too? You're really prepared to make such an egregious comparison?

The fact that man is a creature of reason rather than instinct.

On which planet, Captain Picard?

It is a gross violation of individual rights.

It is absolutely unacceptable to pre-emptively prohibit an act simply because it has the potential to cause physical harm to others. All government should do is punish after the fact those who actually do cause such harm; anything else is the violation of the rights of those who can engage in it without hurting anyone else.

A yes would have been fine.

So by your reasoning people should be able to drive at any speed they like, it is unaceptable that people are restricted by speeding laws?

You sound like an intelegent person, what would you say the diferance is between potential, and probability?

First of all, considering the gap between the injury that you can incure with a selt belt and without, I'm going to go ahead and doubt that you can actually shoulder the full cost of all potential injuries without it being a pretty decent hardship, not to mention that the worse the injury the higher the cost and the greater likelyhood that your income will be effected in a manner that would make your boast even less believable.
.

Sorry but your wrong. My income is independent of my health and its independent of me even being alive actually. I live off of stock dividends.I also made it quite clear that this benefit was comensurate with the top limit cap of most health policies. In fact if i died it would be a GREATER economic benefit to the community due to Estate taxes. So i ask again, why am i being sent into indentured servitude to the state over a seatbelt?

We do? If that's the case, why are so many passengers killed in drunk driving accidents?

...

Dude, that's WHY we consider it stupid to get in a car with a drunk driver. Because of how that so frequently leads to death and whatnot.


What about those passengers who cannot determine that their driver is unsafe behind the wheel either because they are too young or inexperienced to recognize impairment or are impaired themselves?

You can never be sure what's going to happen. I once rode in a car with a drunk driver (which was a VERY stupid choice on my part) and nothing bad happened.

The key is to use your best judgment to reduce risks. You aren't going to be able to evaluate with 100% accuracy how good a given driver will be. But you can make judgments like, "Hmm, this fellow seems unable to get his eyes to focus and cannot remember his last name. He may be impaired to a degree that will make him a dangerous driver."


I don't know how many times -- looking back on it -- I rode home in my dad's car from some company picnic or other function when his blood alcohol level made him illegal behind the wheel. Was I supposed to walk home as a kid from dozens of miles away at night?

If your dad made a habit of drinking and driving, then I'd say it was pretty silly of you to go anywhere with him driving. But if you were just a kid at the time then it wasn't really a choice you could always make for yourself.


Determining who's buckled up is simple -- "click" -- but unless the driver's been sentenced to one, most cars don't have breathalyzer ignition locks.

That's where your judgment comes into play.

I swear, I shouldn't let so much overt misconception and downright deliberate ignorance get my Irish up,

Ah, it was worth it just for you to use that phrase. Now I feel all like I'm on a porch somewhere talking to one of my grandparent's feisty friends...

Maybe because if I hire a hooker, I'm not doing so within a system that involves millions of other moving vehicles? Maybe because if I'm not engaged in any behavior requiring sobriety to engage in safely or responsibly, that's okay, too? You're really prepared to make such an egregious comparison?

In terms of physical harm to others, no one has demonstrated yet that seat belt use saves lives of others. I know it's Wikipedia, but apparently seat belt legislation increases deaths of innocent people.

There was a reduction in driver fatalities and an increase in fatalities of rear passengers (not covered by the law)[16]. A subsequent study of 19,000 cyclist and 72,000 pedestrian casualties seen at the time suggests that seat belt wearing drivers were 11-13% more likely to injure pedestrians and 7-8% more likely to injure cyclists [17]. In January 1986 an editorial in The Lancet noted the shortfall in predicted life-saving and "the unexplained and worrying increase in deaths of other road users"[18]. Shortly after this, legal compulsion was extended indefinitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

In terms of the costs to society and hence others through social services, such as the health system, my point stands.

First of all, if you're that loaded and you're bitching about a seatbelt ticket, I'd play a violin for you but I just can't find one tiny enough...

Beat me to it. :D

"Oh boo hoo hoo, poor me! I had to shell out a whopping $50 because I refused to use the padded leather seatbelt in my Beemer! HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED!"

Sorry but your wrong. My income is independent of my health and its independent of me even being alive actually. I live off of stock dividends.I also made it quite clear that this benefit was comensurate with the top limit cap of most health policies. In fact if i died it would be a GREATER economic benefit to the community due to Estate taxes. So i ask again, why am i being sent into indentured servitude to the state over a seatbelt?

First of all, if you're that loaded and you're bitching about a seatbelt ticket, I'd play a violin for you but I just can't find one tiny enough...

Second of all, you keep saying that thing about the cap. Well, friend, without that seatbelt you're likely to hit that cap, then what?

Third-really? Are you fucking kidding me? Stocks? Yeah, those never go south or anything...

In fact if i died it would be a GREATER economic benefit to the community due to Estate taxes.

Not just economic from the sounds of it.

Your situation in inherently flawed because you presume you know how severe your collision will be and how much it will all wind up costing or continue to cost if paralysis or other chronic care injuries are involved. Even if you could see all that ahead of time, you're ONE PERSON. Nobody is above the law, no matter what the justification, the office, the time volunteered as a civil servant -- nobody. That's the social contract. Your bullshit "I'm rich" argument is maid of Class Warfare-brand fail.

You have completly missapplied what i said. I dont claim to be above the law, i object to the laws existence period and additionally its unfairness in my own personal example. And the reasons i objected to its existence i clearly stated and they all centered around a "i will do no harm to others but otherwise want to be left alone" viewpoint.

...And thank you in advance for being so gracious as to comply.

Thank yous are for requests not govenment orders.

So do I. How many have to die before prevention becomes something you'll support?
That will never happen; liberty is infinitely more important.

A yes would have been fine.

So by your reasoning people should be able to drive at any speed they like, it is unaceptable that people are restricted by speeding laws?
Yes.

You sound like an intelegent person, what would you say the diferance is between potential, and probability?
Significant but irrelevant to this discussion, since individual rights trump any other concern.

That is not what I said. Please do not build strawmen.

Tell you what. I won't do that if you stop your meandering post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense, okay?

Calm down.

Ah, trying to seize the high ground are you? Whatever. Apologies, pal, but rampant and smug assumptions about your superiority tend to rub me the wrong way. Tell you what again. I'll post how I want and you can post how you want.

That's irrelevant; people should only be punished when they've actually hurt someone.

I see, so you'd be okay with legalizing attempted murder, and only punishing those who go through with it or who injure someone in the attempt (with the lesser charge of mere assault/battery)? Or maybe you'd be okay with companies who knowingly pollute or produce chemicals as waste and introduce them to the environment, only punishing them when somoene gets sick? I agree that everything cannot be prevented, but where the greatest prevention can be had for the least expenditure...your noble philosophy fals to the ground.

I'm aware that governments tend to assert otherwise; they are wrong.

I'll use a colloquial version your posting style to refute this:

Sez you.


I don't have to; I am under no moral obligation to obey an unjust and illegitimate law, and the state is morally obligated to refrain from making or enforcing such laws.

Heh. I admire your principles. I even agree, to a point. I loathe the fact that 9 of my 10 lifetime speeding tickets have come in the middle of nowhere in perfect conditions while I was trying to make some time between isolated places along straight stretches of highway. However, I remind myself that driving is a privilege, not a right, and then I calm down and realize that I should have left earlier or set my cruise control lower.

But seriously, though -- good luck trying to actually live like you think you're entitled to disobey on principle. Cops LOVE pissing guys like you off. It just isn't worth it. And while defending jackrabbits from my 70-in-a-60 in the middle of central Oregon on a clear summer day might annoy me, I'm glad when they pull over the weaving, drunken asshole before he kills someone. I'll make that trade. If you think that makes me somehow less than rational or less than human (reading your last few posts), I can live with that, too.

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"The state doesn't force you to drive. If you don't wish to wear a seatbelt, refrain from driving or riding in a car.
No force involved.

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 that driving isn't a right in the first place, it's a priviledge. As such, certain stipulations can be set upon that priviledge without violating anybody's rights.

Its my life what am i supposed to do? Specific or not these are the issues im dealing with in real life. So again why am i being punished?

'cause you're one of many.

There's no exception to laws because "my case is a special one and I can afford it and no one else is affected". The seatbelt law has to account for all drivers in all conditions in all the time of days. So it's reduced to either everyone has to or nobody has to. Society decided that everyone has to.

If you're that concerned for your rights, by all means go somewhere where seatblets are not forced upon drivers. You can afford it, after all.

I know! We could have some kind of test for people to take before they drive on publicly-funded roads to prove they can "engage in" driving "without causing harm to others".
Yes, requiring licenses to drive on publicly funded roads is absolutely unacceptable.

If you are forced to pay for the road whether you want to or not, you do indeed have the right to drive on it, regardless of what the government says.

Your situation in inherently flawed because you presume you know how severe your collision will be and how much it will all wind up costing or continue to cost if paralysis or other chronic care injuries are involved. Even if you could see all that ahead of time, you're ONE PERSON. Nobody is above the law, no matter what the justification, the office, the time volunteered as a civil servant -- nobody. That's the social contract. Your bullshit "I'm rich" argument is maid of Class Warfare-brand fail.

I wonder, is he proposing a special sticker that he gets to put on his car? X number of assets and time spent volunteering and he gets to put a "I'm better than you" sticker in his rear window that gives him a free pass on tickets.

"That son-of-a-bitch just cut me off." "Honey, look. He's got that sticker." "Oh, well then it's clearly my fault for not getting my lowly vehicle out of his presence."

Of course in my 'living close to the bone nothing to lose' days a sticker like that would have pissed me off enough for me to start ramming my giant nearly indestructible Chevy into a car bearing it until their car was a crumpled heap. What would I have cared? He could afford it

I wonder, is he proposing a special sticker that he gets to put on his car? X number of assets and time spent volunteering and he gets to put a "I'm better than you" sticker in his rear window that gives him a free pass on tickets.

"That son-of-a-bitch just cut me off." "Honey, look. He's got that sticker." "Oh, well then it's clearly my fault for not getting my lowly vehicle out of his presence."

Thats bullshit. Society has a problem with people running around draining the larger society with thier evil nonseatbeltedness. If i could assure a judge that they have nothing to fear from me damaging society in this way or any way, then why should i be punished as though i actually had harmed society or had the potential to do so? Why should society care what i do as long as i can demonstrate no harm?

Yes, requiring licenses to drive on publicly funded roads is absolutely unacceptable.

If you are forced to pay for the road whether you want to or not, you do indeed have the right to drive on it, regardless of what the government says.

Yeah...we tried that. It was a phenomenally bad idea. And that's when there weren't nearly as many cars.

Yes, requiring licenses to drive on publicly funded roads is absolutely unacceptable.

If you are forced to pay for the road whether you want to or not, you do indeed have the right to drive on it, regardless of what the government says.You don't pay for the road, you pay for your personal use of the road.
Since other people also pay for the road, they get to have a say in how the road is used. If most people think differently than you, tough shit for you.

Yes, requiring licenses to drive on publicly funded roads is absolutely unacceptable.

If you are forced to pay for the road whether you want to or not, you do indeed have the right to drive on it, regardless of what the government says.

If you disagree so much with the way the country you live in is run why don't you do everyone a favour and emigrate to somewhere that operates under your rather weird philosophical ideas?

Thats bullshit. Society has a problem with people running around draining the larger society with thier evil nonseatbeltedness. If i could assure a judge that they have nothing to fear from me damaging society in this way or any way, then why should i be punished as though i actually had harmed society or had the potential to do so? Why should society care what i do as long as i can demonstrate no harm?
Yeah, but you can't no matter how rich you are. Your arguments to date have been unconvincing. And I'm not footing the court costs of you going all Thurston Howell every time your rich ass feels like it should be above everyone, either.

Yeah, but you can't no matter how rich you are. Your arguments to date have been unconvincing. And I'm not footing the court costs of you going all Thurston Howell every time your rich ass feels like it should be above everyone, either.
Again tax payers dont pay court costs. At least in NYS court costs are paid for in addition to the fines paid when you get a ticket. THIS is the real reason why the seatbelt laws exist. Its REVENUE. In fact the court costs are higher then the fines in many cases and are always mandatory. If i recall in 2000 i ran a stop sign. My fine was $50 and the court fees were $135 on top of it. I was in front of the judge for probably 30 seconds. Thats $16,200 an hour in court costs according to my math. WHOS making the money here? And i pay for my own defence. So try again.

You don't pay for the road, you pay for your personal use of the road.
Since other people also pay for the road, they get to have a say in how the road is used. If most people think differently than you, tough shit for you.

That gets lost in the shuffle, doesn't it? I paid for that road, too, and maybe I don't want you assholing it up...

Beat me to it. :D

"Oh boo hoo hoo, poor me! I had to shell out a whopping $50 because I refused to use the padded leather seatbelt in my Beemer! HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED!"

It's $200 here.
Which I will admit goes a good way towards showing that the law is more about making governmental money than about actually caring about citizens.

Of course, it's not that at all... it's the laws existence in and of itself which is so repugnant and insulting, as well as plain immoral.

And while defending jackrabbits from my 70-in-a-60 in the middle of central Oregon on a clear summer day might annoy me, I'm glad when they pull over the weaving, drunken asshole before he kills someone.

You know, I'm glad when they pull over that drunk too. Unfortunately, statistics show that the government cares more about prosecuting the speeder than it does the drunkard, and it's put more resources into fining the speeder. Cops are a LOT more likely to let a drunk driver drive away than they are to let off a speeder on a warning.

If you disagree so much with the way the country you live in is run why don't you do everyone a favour and emigrate to somewhere that operates under your rather weird philosophical ideas?

Asking someone to refrain from expressing their opinion whenever it's contrary to "the way things are" is a very bad precedent. I just thought you should look at what you're saying here, it's extremely anti-representative government of ANY type.

Again tax payers dont pay court costs. At least in NYS court costs are paid for in addition to the fines paid when you get a ticket. In fact the court costs are higher then the fines in many cases and are always mandatory. And i pay for my own defence. So try again.

Do you want to re-write that sentence or are we going to go with that?

Except that driving isn't a right in the first place, it's a priviledge. As such, certain stipulations can be set upon that priviledge without violating anybody's rights.

As I explained earlier, it is a right, regardless of any assertions the government may make to the contrary.

You know, I'm glad when they pull over that drunk too. Unfortunately, statistics show that the government cares more about prosecuting the speeder than it does the drunkard, and it's put more resources into fining the speeder. Cops are a LOT more likely to let a drunk driver drive away than they are to let off a speeder on a warning.
.
You're going to have to demonstrate that claim.

If you disagree so much with the way the country you live in is run why don't you do everyone a favour and emigrate to somewhere that operates under your rather weird philosophical ideas?

I am not obligated to go out of my way to avoid having my sacred natural individual rights violated; everyone else is simply obligated to stop violating them.

Do you want to re-write that sentence or are we going to go with that?

Has been rewritten for clarification but is still exactly accurate as previously written. You do realize of course there is a distinction from the the fine for a violation and a court fee or surcharge on top of and in addition to it.

Yeah...we tried that. It was a phenomenally bad idea. And that's when there weren't nearly as many cars.

Something is only a "bad idea" or a "good idea" when it is weighed against a certain set of criteria.

Tell me, what set of criteria are you using? I'm certain it's not the correct one.

Something is only a "bad idea" or a "good idea" when it is weighed against a certain set of criteria.

Tell me, what set of criteria are you using? I'm certain it's not the correct one.

That whole 'your right to swing your arm ends at my nose' thing.

As I explained earlier, it is a right, regardless of any assertions the government may make to the contrary.You didn't explain it earlier, you asserted it earlier, and are asserting it again.

That whole 'your right to swing your arm ends at my nose' thing.

The irony is, that actually supports my argument, not yours.

Since, after all, you can swing your fist all you want as long as you don't hit my nose.

It doesn't matter what you have the potential to do; what matters is what you actually do wind up doing.

That whole 'your right to swing your arm ends at my nose' thing.

But that's not how it works. He has a right to swing his arm, and you have an obligation to keep your nose away from wherever he chooses to swing it. You just don't have the same right to swing your arm; not if it gets in his way. Don't you know anything about Libertarianism?

Again tax payers dont pay court costs. At least in NYS court costs are paid for in addition to the fines paid when you get a ticket. THIS is the real reason why the seatbelt laws exist. Its REVENUE. In fact the court costs are higher then the fines in many cases and are always mandatory. If i recall in 2000 i ran a stop sign. My fine was $50 and the court fees were $135 on top of it. I was in front of the judge for probably 30 seconds. Thats $16,200 an hour in court costs according to my math. WHOS making the money here? And i pay for my own defence. So try again.

Okay we'll start, well, at random.

Fines are meant to be punitive. Did you miss that somewhere? They are a punishment. Would you prefer a penalty box? Having to wear a big read A?

I've sat in courts-if you're court system is seriously processing people at two a minute you've achieved something special. Please don't keep this method secret.

So, my fines get to increase to cover the time you don't pay because you went Thurston Howell? Did you just pass your rich guy privilege off on others again? Yes, yes you did. Unless you're arguing that to avoid your seatbelt ticket you'd pay the court costs to come in and explain why you should be above your seatbelt ticket...

Seriously, when are you guys going to come to grips with the fact that you share this world with other human beings and no matter how wealthy you are or how sure you are about the inalienable right to be a total dick you have to make accommodations?

The problem that I have with the Libertarian argument in matters like this is that while they want the personal freedoms, they don't seem to argue for the personal responsibility that goes along with them. Once the laws are changed so that anyone becoming a vegetable due to their not wearing a seatbelt won't get any insurance money, public assistance, etc, then, and only then, will I support their freedom of choice on this matter.

Claiming you have the freedom to choose, but then drive up my insurance premiums when you become comatose just isn't right...

The irony is, that actually supports my argument, not yours.

Since, after all, you can swing your fist all you want as long as you don't hit my nose.

It doesn't matter what you have the potential to do; what matters is what you actually do wind up doing.

Yeah...except when that arm is a 2 tonne automobile your ability to control that swing is limited and thus we have to mitigate your ability to swing it into me. When you barrel down the road, unshorn by seatbelt at a buck twenty five without any instruction on how to operate the car or interact with other drivers or even no common understanding of conduct, you are going to hit my nose.

We tried it your way, noses were hit. Bad idea, move on.

Okay we'll start, well, at random.

Fines are meant to be punitive. Did you miss that somewhere? They are a punishment. Would you prefer a penalty box? Having to wear a big read A?

Yea ive now asked at least 4x now why i should be punished and best anyone can say is well its easier to punish everyone then it is to punish the ones that by not wearing seatbelts are actually harming society. What is the State punativly punishing me for again?

I've sat in courts-if you're court system is seriously processing people at two a minute you've achieved something special. Please don't keep this method secret.

Yes im sure this is the first place you have ever heard that traffic tickets are huge revenue earners for cities and towns. I wonder what the source of this money is? Hmm.

So, my fines get to increase to cover the time you don't pay because you went Thurston Howell? Did you just pass your rich guy privilege off on others again? Yes, yes you did. Unless you're arguing that to avoid your seatbelt ticket you'd pay the court costs to come in and explain why you should be above your seatbelt ticket...

Nope sorry again, you have to pay the court costs regardless if you plead guilty in the mail and never come 100 miles within the courthouse or take it to trial and are found guilty. The courts will get your money plus your fine either way. Taxpayers in these cities arnt paying they are PROFITING and in some cases massivly. There are small towns in the US whos primary revenue are from traffic violations. "speed trap towns"

Seriously, when are you guys going to come to grips with the fact that you share this world with other human beings and no matter how wealthy you are or how sure you are about the inalienable right to be a total dick you have to make accommodations?

Jealousy seems to rear its ugly head here. Notice how now that he happens to know my income im suddenly a "you guys" as though i just changed into a different species and a "total dick" when all i did was in a nonconfrontational way talk about my viewpoint and how i consider the application of the seatbelt law to be unfair?

Yea ive now asked at least 4x now why i should be punished and best anyone can say is well its easier to punish everyone then it is to punish the ones that by not wearing seatbelts are actually harming society. What is the State punativly punishing me for again?
That is not what everyone is saying. We are saying we are unconvinced by your assertional that you live in a bubble. Do try and read what people are saying and not what you wish they were saying.



Yes im sure this is the first place you have ever heard that traffic tickets are huge revenue earners for cities and towns. I wonder what the source of this money is? Hmm.
Addresses nothing.



Nope sorry again, you have to pay the court costs regardless if you plead guilty in the mail and never come 100 miles within the courthouse or take it to trial and are found guilty. The courts will get your money plus your fine either way. Taxpayers in these cities arnt paying they are PROFITING and in some cases massivly. There are small towns in the US whos primary revenue are from traffic violations. "speed trap towns"
But you are not pleading guilty, are you, champ? No, you're pleading 'above the law.' You are not paying a fine, unless-once again-you're paying the court costs so you can argue that you shouldn't pay the seatbelt ticket. So then, who foots the bill? The guy who can't argue 'special privilege.'



Jealousy seems to rear its ugly head here. Notice how now that he happens to know my income im a "you guys" and a "total dick" when all i did was in a nonconfrontational way talk about my viewpoint and how i consider the application of the seatbelt law to be unfair?
Ummm, 'you guys' refers to people who think that seatbelt laws are simply an affront to freedom. You can take the victim bandages off now, slugger.

Yea ive now asked at least 4x now why i should be punished and best anyone can say is well its easier to punish everyone then it is to punish the ones that by not wearing seatbelts are actually harming society. What is the State punativly punishing me for again?


You got punished because you didn't follow the law. Same as everybody who gets caught breaking the law. Just because you think you didn't do anything wrong is not a good reason for not punishing you for breaking the law.

The fact that man is a creature of reason rather than instinct.

Bwhahahahah ohhh really? It seems to me that the majority of mankind act more on instinct than reason, otherwise we would all be atheists huh!
It seems to me that irrationality is the default for mankind, otherwise there would be no war huh! Or hatred based on skin colour, or sexuality, it seems 'reasonable' to me that man should respect their elders for the knowledge and experiances that they hold, yet we don't, ohhh please show me how reasoned we are.

In what way though does your answer, actualy answer the question I asked you?

That is not what everyone is saying. We are saying we are unconvinced by your assertional that you live in a bubble. Do try and read what people are saying and not what you wish they were saying.

Im sorry your not convinced. Doesnt however change the reality of the situation.

The original point is and remains, if i choose to defend myself against what i determine are unfair laws then i will pay the court costs when and if i lose. Thus im creating no burden to society due to legal costs accrued by the State as you were incorrectly asserting i would. Because i would pay the court cost in addition to fines if i lost, i am paying for what i am using and this does not constitute a drain. The rest of this is all an irrelevent tangent to this point. but does get back to my first point that i feel that if soemone can show they arnt draining society in any way from not wearing a seatbelt then society should have no compelling reason to force them to do so.

But you are not pleading guilty, are you, champ? No, you're pleading 'above the law.' You are not paying a fine, unless-once again-you're paying the court costs so you can argue that you shouldn't pay the seatbelt ticket. So then, who foots the bill? The guy who can't argue 'special privilege.'

I honestly dont know what im going to plead. Even if i plead not guilty, unless the cop has the dayoff im pretty much screwed. No judge would support my arguement because it threatens thier livelyhood directly. So ill end up paying the fine and the court cost or get it pled down to soemthing less but its all bullshit. then my insurance rises i get hundreds of dollars of fines and again FOR WHAT? NOTHING!



Ummm, 'you guys' refers to people who think that seatbelt laws are simply an affront to freedom. You can take the victim bandages off now, slugger.

Really? I see. And what exactly was "total dick" refering to then? Slugger.

Im sorry your not convinced. Doesnt however change the reality of the situation.

The original point is and remains, if i choose to defend myself against what i determine are unfair laws then i will pay the court costs when and if i lose. Thus im creating no burden to society due to legal costs accrued by the State as you were incorrectly asserting i would. Because i would pay the court cost in addition to fines if i lost, i am paying for what i am using and this does not constitute a drain. The rest of this is all an irrelevent tangent to this point. but does get back to my first point that i feel that if soemone can show they arnt draining society in any way from not wearing a seatbelt then society should have no compelling reason to force them to do so.


If you think that the added fine and what they call "court costs" will cover the total amount of court costs, then you are sadly mistaken. It is not enoung to pay the salaries of everyone involved in your case, let alone the heating and so on that ends up paid by the state.

If you think that the added fine and what they call "court costs" will cover the total amount of court costs, then you are sadly mistaken. It is not enoung to pay the salaries of everyone involved in your case, let alone the heating and so on that ends up paid by the state.

Yea right, thats why some entire towns revenue is based on traffic court proceeds. They dont have speed trap towns because the people in that town just really really really really hate speeders.

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.
Interesting. Wearing a seatbelt = guns pointed at you and forced marching, eh?

Must be a strange, strange world you live in.

Im sorry your not convinced. Doesnt however change the reality of the situation.
Neither does stomping your foot down and whining, "I don't wanna!!!"

The original point is and remains, if i choose to defend myself against what i determine are unfair laws then i will pay the court costs when and if i lose. Thus im creating no burden to society due to legal costs accrued by the State as you were incorrectly asserting i would. Because i would pay the court cost in addition to fines if i lost, i am paying for what i am using and this does not constitute a drain. The rest of this is all an irrelevent tangent to this point. but does get back to my first point that i feel that if soemone can show they arnt draining society in any way from not wearing a seatbelt then society should have no compelling reason to force them to do so.



I honestly dont know what im going to plead. Even if i plead not guilty, unless the cop has the dayoff im pretty much screwed. No judge would support my arguement because it threatens thier livelyhood directly. So ill end up paying the fine and the court cost or get it pled down to soemthing less but its all bullshit. then my insurance rises i get hundreds of dollars of fines and again FOR WHAT? NOTHING!
Seriously, what the fuck are you saying here? Are you even sure?

You just said you want to go to the court to pay the court costs to argue that you should be above the seatbelt law. Even though this wouldn't actually put you above the seatbelt law.

You might want to back up and come at this one again.





Really? I see. And what exactly was "total dick" refering to then? Slugger.
The other guy, li'l shaver. And regardless of income, putting on the big boots and stomping around endangering others (his license argument) yelling "rights" is being a total dick. Clear enough for you, scamper? Or are you bent on being 'put upon?' Should we get you a tissue?

You just said you want to go to the court to pay the court costs to argue that you should be above the seatbelt law. Even though this wouldn't actually put you above the seatbelt law.

You might want to back up and come at this one again.

All im saying is i will have to pay court costs in addition to fines regardless if i plead guilty or plead innocent and get found guilty. So the State will get thier pint of blood. Thats all im saying. They will get paid in full and then some due to my involvement in the court system. Period. And then i get to go be an indentured slave to the State till ive paid my fine. All for what? For me being no harm or threat to anyone but myself either directly or indirectly. And that sucks. And that is my real point. Really.
So going a step beyond that reasoning, the discussion morphed into: If you could prove that acting in a certian way wouldnt harm society then should the State have the right to prohibit you from doing those things anyway. Is this clearer now?

If you think that the added fine and what they call "court costs" will cover the total amount of court costs, then you are sadly mistaken. It is not enoung to pay the salaries of everyone involved in your case, let alone the heating and so on that ends up paid by the state.
Yea right, thats why some entire towns revenue is based on traffic court proceeds. They dont have speed trap towns because the people in that town just really really really really hate speeders.

Okay, let me get this straight.
1- I argue that the fine you'll get doesn't cover the burden to taxpayers.
2- You say that entire town set up speed traps for traffic violation revenue.

Now how does 2 even remotely explain, rebuke or even adress 1 ?

All im saying is i will have to pay court costs in addition to fines regardless if i plead guilty or plead innocent and get found guilty. So the State will get thier pint of blood. Thats all im saying. They will get paid in full and then some due to my involvement in the court system. Period. And then i get to go be an indentured slave to the State till ive paid my fine. All for what? For me being no harm or threat to anyone but myself either directly or indirectly. And that sucks. And that is my real point. Really.

Dude, seriously. Back up, read where this court tangent started and try again. I think you've gotten yourself twisted here.

Dude, seriously. Back up, read where this court tangent started and try again. I think you've gotten yourself twisted here.

The court tangent started when i said that i could reasonably argue that i would not cost society in any way by not wearing a seatbelt. I gave a series of reasons why this was true. You then claimed that you as a taxpayer didnt want to deal with the expence of me in court. My responce was that i pay for court costs if i choose to be in court so im not creating a burden or cost to society there either. Clearer?

And then argued that you'd be paying because you'd be found guilty.

So, which is it? You want the right to go to court and get denied the privilege of being above the seatbelt laws? It's yours! Congratulations! You get to pay the seatbelt ticket and the court costs, you've come a long way, baby.

Or-

You want to be able to argue that you should be above it and then be above it, which would mean that you are found not guilty and pay nothing, thus passing on the court costs to others.

Which is it?

If im found guilty i will pay the court costs. If im found not guilty then the State was in error for causing me these problems in the first place and i should have no expectation to pay any court costs beyond representation nor would anyone ask me to. Why is this an either or choice?

The court tangent started when i said that i could reasonably argue that i would not cost society in any way by not wearing a seatbelt. I gave a series of reasons why this was true. You then claimed that you as a taxpayer didnt want to deal with the expence of me in court. My responce was that i pay for court costs if i choose to be in court so im not creating a burden or cost to society there either. Clearer?

And then argued that you'd be paying because you'd be found guilty.

So, which is it? You want the right to go to court and get denied the privilege of being above the seatbelt laws? It's yours! Congratulations! You get to pay the seatbelt ticket and the court costs, you've come a long way, baby.

Or-

You want to be able to argue that you should be above it and then be above it, which would mean that you are found not guilty and pay nothing, thus passing on the court costs to others.

Which is it?

If im found guilty i will pay the court costs. If im found not guilty then the State was in error for causing me these problems in the first place and i should have no expectation to pay any court costs beyond representation nor would anyone ask me to. Why is this an either or choice?

Your argument was about transfered cost, you forwarded that you should be able to go to the court and argue that you should be exempt, thus forwarding the court cost to me who cannot argue such privilege. There is no scenario you can wrap this where you are not passing the costs on to others no matter how much you twist and turn.

While it has been amusing to watch, it has come full circle and since I cannot plead special privilege to opt out of my obligations I have to go take care of some of them now. I don't usually announce my leaving a thread (even if temporarily, but there is no guaranteeing I'll muster the interest to carry on when I return) but you seem touchy so I thought I'd hedge...

Once the laws are changed so that anyone becoming a vegetable due to their not wearing a seatbelt won't get any insurance money, public assistance, etc, then, and only then, will I support their freedom of choice on this matter.

Then you misunderstand libertarianism.

No libertarian advocates retaining the current status quo of requiring liability coverage as a legally mandated precondition for driving on public roads. So since you're not required to be covered, it doesn't matter what not wearing a seatbelt might do to the rates of those covered by the same insurance company; if you don't want to take that risk, you're free to choose not to purchase insurance.

And no libertarian would argue that not having insurance absolves you of your responsibility for the harm you cause to others; if you're not covered, you can expect to be sued for all you're worth and/or put in a debtor's prison until you pay off the costs incurred by your victim.

Try again.

Yeah...except when that arm is a 2 tonne automobile your ability to control that swing is limited and thus we have to mitigate your ability to swing it into me.
Differences of scale do not affect the objective moral principles involved.

We tried it your way, noses were hit.

Tough. Individual rights are infinitely more important than safety.

The problem that I have with the Libertarian argument in matters like this is that while they want the personal freedoms, they don't seem to argue for the personal responsibility that goes along with them. Once the laws are changed so that anyone becoming a vegetable due to their not wearing a seatbelt won't get any insurance money, public assistance, etc, then, and only then, will I support their freedom of choice on this matter.


This is ALL im asking for and couldnt agree 100% more. But then i was accused of being classist because only the rich could then get away with not wearing seatbelts and OMG that isnt fair and the rich shouldnt get a free pass and on and on and on.

I really don't understand this whole "it's my right to not wear a seatbelt" crap. If you don't wear a seatbelt and you are in a vehicle sat behind another person, then at speeds of 30mph you are thrown forward with the force of approximately 3 and a half tonnes. You are likely to kill or at least seriously maim the person in front of you, all because you don't want to wear a strip of fabric.
Get off your high horses and accept that the safety of others around you is more important than you being allowed to do whatever you want. It's called living in society.

I really don't understand this whole "it's my right to not wear a seatbelt" crap. If you don't wear a seatbelt and you are in a vehicle sat behind another person, then at speeds of 30mph you are thrown forward with the force of approximately 3 and a half tonnes. You are likely to kill or at least seriously maim the person in front of you, all because you don't want to wear a strip of fabric.
Get off your high horses and accept that the safety of others around you is more important than you being allowed to do whatever you want. It's called living in society.

You clearly havnt read the thread. If your driving in your car alone, your posing no threat to anyone. We have pretty much determined that the likelyhood of your body leaving the car and injuring another outside of the car from a human projectile borders on the same likelyhood as a space meteor hitting you on the head instead. Feel free to cite the legions of people killed by human projectiles pre seatbelt laws if you feel you must disagree with this.

Get off your high horses and accept that the safety of others around you is more important than you being allowed to do whatever you want.
No, it's not.

Government should only punish people who actually do hurt others, after the fact. That's the only way to avoid violating the sacred individual rights of those who can engage in the same activities without hurting anyone.

You clearly havnt read the thread. If your driving in your car alone, your posing no threat to anyone. We have pretty much determined that the likelyhood of your body leaving the car and injuring another outside of the car from a human projectile borders on the same likelyhood as a space meteor hitting you on the head instead. Feel free to cite the legions of people killed by human projectiles pre seatbelt laws if you feel you must disagree with this.

No, i haven't read the whole thread (it's 24 pages!) although I had started when the thread first started (I was quite surprised to find it still going).
If you are thrown from a car, you don't necessarily have to strike a pedestrian. You may strike another vehicle. Travelling with the force mentioned above, a person would shatter through their windscreen and strike an opposing vehicle in a head-on collision, possibly killing both occupants. That would surely be an infringement of their right to survive?

No, it's not.

Government should only punish people who actually do hurt others, after the fact. That's the only way to avoid violating the sacred individual rights of those who can engage in the same activities without hurting anyone.
There is no such thing as "sacred individual rights". Any rights you have are provided and protected, or not as the case maybe, through society.
Surely it is better to protect someones life before they are killed/injured than to punish someone after? Would you support not arresting terrorists before they commit murder, they haven't done anything wrong yet so why should we stop them?

There is no such thing as "sacred individual rights". Any rights you have are provided and protected, or not as the case maybe, through society.
Incorrect.

One's rights are an inherent part of his existence as a human being, and are not dependent upon government.


Surely it is better to protect someones life before they are killed/injured than to punish someone after?
No, that's not an acceptable tradeoff. Individual rights are infinitely more important than safety.

Would you support not arresting terrorists before they commit murder, they haven't done anything wrong yet so why should we stop them?

Precisely.

No, it's not.

Government should only punish people who actually do hurt others, after the fact. That's the only way to avoid violating the sacred individual rights of those who can engage in the same activities without hurting anyone.

Sounds great! Useless, of course, but some ideologies are.

I suppose, then, that we should repeal all traffic laws. After all, I won't necessarily kill anyone if I drive 90 mph through a parking lot. No need to license doctors and make it illegal to practice medicine without a license. No need to prohibit blind people from driving vehicles. It should be perfectly legal to randomly shoot a weapon in a crowd. If you're having a party at your house, it should be perfectly legal for you to catch your own home on fire. After all, we wouldn't want to infringe on someone's "sacred rights" to recklessly endanger others.

No, that's not an acceptable tradeoff. Individual rights are infinitely more important than safety.

Individual rights don't include safety?

Incorrect.

One's rights are an inherent part of his existence as a human being, and are not dependent upon government.
No, you have abilities as a human being, not rights. Rights are given to you by the society in which you live.


No, that's not an acceptable tradeoff. Individual rights are infinitely more important than safety.
But surely my "right" to life overrides your right to kill me.


Precisely.

I'm trying to work out whether you're being serious. You would honestly rather tens/hundreds/thousands of people die first before acting against someone?

Sounds great! Useless, of course, but some ideologies are.

I suppose, then, that we should repeal all traffic laws. After all, I won't necessarily kill anyone if I drive 90 mph through a parking lot. No need to license doctors and make it illegal to practice medicine without a license. No need to prohibit blind people from driving vehicles. It should be perfectly legal to randomly shoot a weapon in a crowd. If you're having a party at your house, it should be perfectly legal for you to catch your own home on fire. After all, we wouldn't want to infringe on someone's "sacred rights" to recklessly endanger others.
Precisely.

Individual rights don't include safety?
You have the right to do whatever you want, provided you don't hurt anyone else. The mere potential of an act to cause harm to others is insufficient cause to ban it, because that would violate the rights of those who can engage in that act without hurting anyone else. Government should only punish after the fact those who actually do hurt others. Anything else is unacceptable.

No, you have abilities as a human being, not rights. Rights are given to you by the society in which you live.
Incorrect. That rights are an inherent part of one's existence has been known to philosophers since the 18th century.

The idea that rights are something that can be granted and revoked at the whim of the King or the collective or "society" is way obsolete.


But surely my "right" to life overrides your right to kill me.
Please read my post above for a fuller explanation; I grow tired of repeating the same thing for different people.


I'm trying to work out whether you're being serious. You would honestly rather tens/hundreds/thousands of people die first before acting against someone?
Individual rights trump everything else.

Precisely.

I'll tell you what. You go live (or not, as it were) in your idiotic world where people die all the time, and I'll live in one where I might actually survive.

There is no use in simply punishing those who do stupid things and harm others. It won't accomplish anything - those people will already be harmed/dead.

You have the right to do whatever you want, provided you don't hurt anyone else.

No one has the right to knowingly and intentionally endanger others.

No, i haven't read the whole thread (it's 24 pages!) although I had started when the thread first started (I was quite surprised to find it still going).
If you are thrown from a car, you don't necessarily have to strike a pedestrian. You may strike another vehicle. Travelling with the force mentioned above, a person would shatter through their windscreen and strike an opposing vehicle in a head-on collision, possibly killing both occupants. That would surely be an infringement of their right to survive?

As i have repeatedly stated, this simply does not happen and unproven "what if" statements are not an approriate basis for taking away a persons rights. You need to cite the number of times human projectiles have hurt or killed people or even if its ever happened at all to determine if this is a huge problem that the government needs to step in and get involved. Your arguement is Stephen Colbertish. You want human projectiles to be true because they sound true. So therefore they must be. Please instead of hypotheticals supposing how one may or may not be a deadly human projectile, lets look at data and view the human record of experience and identify how many times this has actually happened then base our reaction on its frequency. Im guessing youll be looking a long time for those human projectile deaths.

Then you misunderstand libertarianism.

No libertarian advocates retaining the current status quo of requiring liability coverage as a legally mandated precondition for driving on public roads. So since you're not required to be covered, it doesn't matter what not wearing a seatbelt might do to the rates of those covered by the same insurance company; if you don't want to take that risk, you're free to choose not to purchase insurance.

And no libertarian would argue that not having insurance absolves you of your responsibility for the harm you cause to others; if you're not covered, you can expect to be sued for all you're worth and/or put in a debtor's prison until you pay off the costs incurred by your victim.

Try again.

No, you misunderstood my point.

Let's use a hypothetical (and a relatively simple one at that): you are driving your car, not wearing your seatbelt (sorry, "exercising your freedoms"). Tire blows out, you hit a tree, sending your skull into the windshield. Ambulance comes, takes you to the ER, and you are admitted overnight for observation. All of the above would have been avoided if you were wearing your seatbelt.

Question is, who pays for it? Well, most likely your insurance company or the government (unless you happen to be very wealthy and pay all medical costs out of your own pocket). If it were either of the first two, part of the cost (even if minimal) comes to me.

Why should I be expected to pay for your freedoms? Personally, I don't care whether you wear your seatbelt or not, but if you kill yourself in a crash, I shouldn't be left holding the bag. This is what I was talking about - I fully agree that you should be free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect me in the least bit.

*edited to remove some unintentional nastiness on my part - if anyone took offense, I apologize*

Incorrect. That rights are an inherent part of one's existence has been known to philosophers since the 18th century.

The idea that rights are something that can be granted and revoked at the whim of the King or the collective or "society" is way obsolete.

People in the 18th century also believed that balancing the four humours would cure you of any ill. Both are incorrect assumptions.
Rights are given to you by society. Your ability to do things either with or without those "rights" does not make them a right, rather they are an ability.
I am capable of of extracting a persons tooth, but I do not have that right without their permission.


Please read my post above for a fuller explanation; I grow tired of repeating the same thing for different people.
But the fact that you making use of your "right" could cause harm to others impinges on their "rights", because of this your individual "right" must be curtailed for the protection of the rights of those around you.



Individual rights trump everything else.
No, they don't.

People in the 18th century also believed that balancing the four humours would cure you of any ill.

Hey man, that had potential.

It's not a victimless crime if you get fucked up on PCP or somethign fo the sort, and kill someone, as happens quite frequently. What about drunk driving? That is far from a victimless crime.

Let's try this approach. If we accept that you should have the right to not wear a seat belt if you so choose, the question remains why one would choose to deliberately endanger themselves. If your reason for not wanting to wear one is that someone else suggested (for your own safety) that you ought, that bespeaks the emotional development of a two-year-old.

Then you misunderstand libertarianism.

No libertarian advocates retaining the current status quo of requiring liability coverage as a legally mandated precondition for driving on public roads. So since you're not required to be covered, it doesn't matter what not wearing a seatbelt might do to the rates of those covered by the same insurance company; if you don't want to take that risk, you're free to choose not to purchase insurance.

And no libertarian would argue that not having insurance absolves you of your responsibility for the harm you cause to others; if you're not covered, you can expect to be sued for all you're worth and/or put in a debtor's prison until you pay off the costs incurred by your victim.

Try again.

And if you're not covered and you're driving and you hit another guy? You pay yourself. But what if you don't have any money? Rich people aren't the only ones who get into traffic accidents, you know.

If someone hits me but has no insurance and no money to pay for the damages to my car, and maybe medical costs to any injuries I sustained, who is left holding the bag in this libertarian paradise of yours?

If you have no insurance, and you crash into me and because you're not wearing a seatbelt, your flying soon-to-be-carcass hits my car after it goes through your own windshield, who pays?

Who pays for your idiotic ass to get cleaned off the pavement as well?

People who support Victimless Crime laws always claim to have morality on their side, but they forget that any and all Initiation of Force is immoral and that there is an inalienable absolute right to life, liberty, and property. They ignore that self-ownership is self-evident and that to argue against it is self-contradictory (you cannot disprove self-ownership, because you cannot argue against it unless it is true).

It is impossible to dispute pure Libertarianism on a philosophical basis without resorting to fallacy. It is also impossible to dispute Laissez-Faire Capitalism in economics or Isolationism in foreign policy without the use of fallacy.

It is simple. You cannot oppose pure Libertarianism and still adhere to non-contradictory sound logic. Libertarianism is the recognition of the fact that there is one scientifically correct political ideology and that all alternatives are self-evidently wrong.

Victimless crime laws inevitably make the activity more dangerous and make things worse. Unfree economic policy leads to retardation or to a complete stoppage in economic growth and possible even to economic regression. Imperialistic foreign policies are laughably absurd and their supporters nothing more than a glorified death cult.

If i can prove to you that your not in any way covering the cost financially or losing any services from me not wearing my seatbelt, would you then agree that the seatbelt restriction should be removed from that person?

You can't. Because it takes my tax dollars to mop up your bloody remains.

People who support Victimless Crime laws always claim to have morality on their side, but they forget that any and all Initiation of Force is immoral and that there is an inalienable absolute right to life, liberty, and property. They ignore that self-ownership is self-evident and that to argue against it is self-contradictory (you cannot disprove self-ownership, because you cannot argue against it unless it is true).

It is impossible to dispute pure Libertarianism on a philosophical basis without resorting to fallacy. It is also impossible to dispute Laissez-Faire Capitalism in economics or Isolationism in foreign policy without the use of fallacy.

It is simple. You cannot oppose pure Libertarianism and still adhere to non-contradictory sound logic. Libertarianism is the recognition of the fact that there is one scientifically correct political ideology and that all alternatives are self-evidently wrong.

Victimless crime laws inevitably make the activity more dangerous and make things worse. Unfree economic policy leads to retardation or to a complete stoppage in economic growth and possible even to economic regression. Imperialistic foreign policies are laughably absurd and their supporters nothing more than a glorified death cult.

You have an incredible, and irrational, faith in your ideology.

But let's assume you know what you're talking about. Let's pick one of the many claims you posted and look at it: any and all Initiation of Force is immoral.

Ignoring your bad word usage and capitalisation, we would see that you have a whopping generalisation here.

Would an initiation of force be moral in the face of the threat of force? If someone was threatening to attack you, and you were reasonably certain that they would attack you, would it be moral to attack first? They would not have initiated force at this instant, and the assumption is that his attack will be a lethal one. I would say that it is moral to initiate force.

Your generalisation, like all generalisations, is wrong.

Would an initiation of force be moral in the face of the threat of force? If someone was threatening to attack you, and you were reasonably certain that they would attack you, would it be moral to attack first? They would not have initiated force at this instant, and the assumption is that his attack will be a lethal one. I would say that it is moral to initiate force.

Is the force the person in question is initiating also lethal?

People who support Victimless Crime laws always claim to have morality on their side, but they forget that any and all Initiation of Force is immoral and that there is an inalienable absolute right to life, liberty, and property. They ignore that self-ownership is self-evident and that to argue against it is self-contradictory (you cannot disprove self-ownership, because you cannot argue against it unless it is true).

It is impossible to dispute pure Libertarianism on a philosophical basis without resorting to fallacy. It is also impossible to dispute Laissez-Faire Capitalism in economics or Isolationism in foreign policy without the use of fallacy.

It is simple. You cannot oppose pure Libertarianism and still adhere to non-contradictory sound logic. Libertarianism is the recognition of the fact that there is one scientifically correct political ideology and that all alternatives are self-evidently wrong.

Victimless crime laws inevitably make the activity more dangerous and make things worse. Unfree economic policy leads to retardation or to a complete stoppage in economic growth and possible even to economic regression. Imperialistic foreign policies are laughably absurd and their supporters nothing more than a glorified death cult.

Yet another assertion that is presented as true and self-evident without anything to back it up. I have news for you: you saying something is true does not in and of itself make that thing true.

Differences of scale do not affect the objective moral principles involved.



Tough. Individual rights are infinitely more important than safety.

I remain unconvinced. Personal rights will not comfort me or the rest of my family as we mourn the death of my nephew because you 'personal righted' right over his head. The right to safety overrides your right to be an ass. Hands down. Fortunately I don't live in your cartoon world of absolutes and understand the compromises that are required to live with other human beings.

Tough. Individual rights are infinitely more important than safety.

Lit. "I have the right to press the big red button."

You choose to go to the business with smokers. You choose to hang out with who you do. Auto insurance is already compulsory--that's what pays the medical costs, and the more the accident is for, the more you'll be charged with in insurance. You don't have to be around people that use. Honestly, I'm all for laws against drunk driving, but I'm also all for people's right to do with their body as they wish. If I should wish to do ecstasy (which I would never do), that is my choice. My family knows the risk of knowing me. Know governmental limits. What happens when the government outlaws religion because it causes terrorism? Stand up now, while you still can.

Sorry, but I do feel very passionately about this.

P.S. Personal attacks are a logical fallacy. "This person must be wrong because he can't construct a sentence!" By the way, Einstein failed 3 times and was autistic. He also messed himself because he was too busy to stop. He was still a brilliant mind and a genius.

P.S. Personal attacks are a logical fallacy. "This person must be wrong because he can't construct a sentence!" By the way, Einstein failed 3 times and was autistic. He also messed himself because he was too busy to stop. He was still a brilliant mind and a genius.
Logical fallacy, you say? Why, this is truly novel. I don't think anyone on the interwebs or debate forums has ever brought up such a revolutionary concept. You, sir, may have changed the very face of internet debate...and not just logical fallacies, ad hominem, by god man-no one could ever have brought that up before! You will go down in the anals of cyberdebate! Take a bow, sir, you deserve it!


Sorry man, that was a little much to do to someone on their first post, but so many people bang the drum of their first semester English 1A or Argument class like they discovered El Dorado or something, starts to get silly after a while...It's the fucking internet, don't come here expecting Robert's Rules of Order, fallacies are easy to beat (being fallacies) without vomiting up your text book every time and shouting "Fallacy" like you found a land mine.

… and shouting "Fallacy" like you found a land mine.

You can do it if you misspell said word amusingly, however.

You can do it if you misspell said word amusingly, however.

Meh, I rely heavily on Firefox's spell checker and how much I pay attention, both of which can fail me.

EDIT: Like when I type 'really' instead of 'rely'...




...I'm very tired, you see...

EDIT 2: Heeeeyyyy, wait a second. I'm so shitty a speller that I just took it on your word, but that's how it's spelled...dammit...

Meh, I rely heavily on Firefox's spell checker and how much I pay attention, both of which can fail me.

EDIT: Like when I type 'really' instead of 'rely'...

...I'm very tired, you see...

EDIT 2: Heeeeyyyy, wait a second. I'm so shitty a speller that I just took it on your word, but that's how it's spelled...dammit...

One of my misspelling jokes flops again. :(

One of my misspelling jokes flops again. :(

Well, I am really tired. Maybe someone else got it...

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.

No, again this is untrue, we serve ourselves and our community at the same time, the idea of the 'polis' and modern civilizations would come together out of interdependent need, that is in the community we would need a shoemaker, a carpenter, a farmer, a lawyer etc, we have may have need of all these things, and we exchange our labor value (usually in a monetary value or bookkeeping) to trade their need for ours, this is social exchange. Therefore in this society it is in the interests of it's citizens to treat with respect and dignity those whom they rely on to satisfy their needs, and visa versa. We each rely on each other like links in a chain or cogs in a machine of society, if the shoemaker (or industry) decides he no longer wants to work, then it isn't just him that suffers, it is the whole community who don't get shoes, or whatever good or service they require. Everything has an impact on the greater society, and it is the greatest arrogance to think we are 'self-made men' or whatnot, we all an integral part of the community.

To quote Patton:
"All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, 'Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands.' But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits'. Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. "

At the risk of sounding American, I would like to bring up the Declaration of Independence, which said everyone had a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I don't know if it was intentionally written that way, but I think that that is the logical order of what the government should try to secure. No one in Somalia is complaining about their civil liberties being violated, they would first like the guarantee they will live to be met. And of course, if there is no liberty, the pursuit of happiness is difficult.

Seat belt laws are an instance where life is being guaranteed. If people follow the laws, they will be slightly more restricted (literally). However, if they ignore them and die in a car crash, they can have all of the civil liberties in the world and it won't help.

Seatbelt laws have nothing to do with safety. They are pushed and passed by pro-insurance lobbyists. Same with anti-smoking laws or pretty much anything else. The government doesn't do things for people, they work for their loobyists and sugar coat their descisions to win the favor of constituents. The last thing anyone in government gives a shit about is our safety.

At the risk of sounding American, I would like to bring up the Declaration of Independence, which said everyone had a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I don't know if it was intentionally written that way, but I think that that is the logical order of what the government should try to secure. No one in Somalia is complaining about their civil liberties being violated, they would first like the guarantee they will live to be met. And of course, if there is no liberty, the pursuit of happiness is difficult.

Seat belt laws are an instance where life is being guaranteed. If people follow the laws, they will be slightly more restricted (literally). However, if they ignore them and die in a car crash, they can have all of the civil liberties in the world and it won't help.

The government is obligated to protect my life to the extent of how much I wish for it to be protected.

The government is obligated to protect my life to the extent of how much I wish for it to be protected.


the goverment isnt there to protect anyones life. cause i dont see how anyone can see that, that can be said the goverment is in for it self and only it self. the goverment is there to be changed and moved around how we pleased.

the laws that are make daily have honestly nothing to do with the average person, but for the people that have the money in our country.

if you look at the goverment and the laws that have been passed in the pass 20 years it honestly has nothing to do with the average blue callor person. it is there to help the rich get richer.


if you look at the four fathers that make our country. it is the people that decied what happens to us. but over the past 150 or so years we have put our faith in people that we dont now know to take care of us. and if you listen to ben franklin. our goverment was to be taken over by one person in 200 years to change how the goverment worked in todays way of life. but three isnt anyone that is welling to take on the courts to change how we do things. thanks for listing please reply i woulk love to hear what everyone has to say.

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?

The "most basic human right" (as so many people are fond of calling their own particular point), is not "the right to choose", but "the right to live". This is logical; if you're not alive, you have no choice. Period. Therefore, since all other rights hang on the condition that one is already alive, "the right to live" is the most basic human right. Just thought I'd clarify there.

The "most basic human right" (as so many people are fond of calling their own particular point), is not "the right to choose", but "the right to live". This is logical; if you're not alive, you have no choice. Period. Therefore, since all other rights hang on the condition that one is already alive, "the right to live" is the most basic human right. Just thought I'd clarify there.

Does a human have the right to die ?

I wouldn't say so, if only for the reason that death comes naturally anyway. I don't consider death a right; I consider it inherent in being human. Life is something that must be cared for. If left alone, a human will not necessarily go on living; life must be nurtured to be sustained. Death however, will come eventually, no matter how well you're trying to sustain your life. Saying a person has a right to something that inevitably will happen anyway is like saying "Every human has the right to an outer space that's a vacuum!" That's great; but regardless of whether said "right" is actively fought for, every human will still have an outer space that's a vacuum. Even if the "right to die" wasn't actively fought for, humans will die anyway, because we are not immortals. So it's a moot point.

With that said, if a person wishes to have their quote-unquote "right to die", then instead of turning themselves into a possibly-dangerous projectile in a car crash with no seatbelt, they should just stop drinking any fluids. At all. Death will come eventually, and by sitting in an easy chair in your home and wasting away, you've nullified any collateral damage your body would've caused flying at high speed from a car crash.

My right to choose is worth more than money.

Correction: Your right to choose is worth more than YOUR money. If "the right to choose" is what you're fighting for, you must realize that entails people choosing saving their tax dollars over saving your life.

Harsh, but it's the reality.

EDIT: Huzzah! My first time warp!

I wouldn't say so, if only for the reason that death comes naturally anyway. I don't consider death a right; I consider it inherent in being human. Life is something that must be cared for. If left alone, a human will not necessarily go on living; life must be nurtured to be sustained. Death however, will come eventually, no matter how well you're trying to sustain your life. Saying a person has a right to something that inevitably will happen anyway is like saying "Every human has the right to an outer space that's a vacuum!" That's great; but regardless of whether said "right" is actively fought for, every human will still have an outer space that's a vacuum. Even if the "right to die" wasn't actively fought for, humans will die anyway, because we are not immortals. So it's a moot point.

With that said, if a person wishes to have their quote-unquote "right to die", then instead of turning themselves into a possibly-dangerous projectile in a car crash with no seatbelt, they should just stop drinking any fluids. At all. Death will come eventually, and by sitting in an easy chair in your home and wasting away, you've nullified any collateral damage your body would've caused flying at high speed from a car crash.

Dying from dehydration? That seems a bit harsh. How about going out in the middle of a blizzard to die from hypothermia? Much nicer way to go.

Also, I'm not going to where a seat belt if I damn well don't feel like it. I've never heard of cases of someone going through their windshield, and hitting another person. If its happened (I think someone posted ONE example of this), then it happens so rarely to be irrelevant. And people, please stop using how it hurts the economy for people to die, or society at large. Even if its true, it doesn't matter. My right to choose is worth more than money. People are people, not dollar signs. Society doesn't deserve anything from me, or anyone else, at least not in its current state.

Dying from dehydration? That seems a bit harsh. How about going out in the middle of a blizzard to die from hypothermia? Much nicer way to go.

Also, I'm not going to where a seat belt if I damn well don't feel like it. I've never heard of cases of someone going through their windshield, and hitting another person. If its happened (I think someone posted ONE example of this), then it happens so rarely to be irrelevant. And people, please stop using how it hurts the economy for people to die, or society at large. Even if its true, it doesn't matter. My right to choose is worth more than money. People are people, not dollar signs. Society doesn't deserve anything from me, or anyone else, at least not in its current state.

I don't want my tax money to be wasted cleaning what brains you have off the pavement.

If you can prove to me that they won't be, fine, don't wear a seatbelt, get yourself killed, I'll be perfectly happy to have one less dumbass on the road.

Correction: Your right to choose is worth more than YOUR money. If "the right to choose" is what you're fighting for, you must realize that entails people choosing saving their tax dollars over saving your life.

Harsh, but it's the reality.

EDIT: Huzzah! My first time warp!

Ha, well I don't need saving. I'm as healthy as a horse. I'll deal with my own problems. I don't need any handouts. As such I'll do as a I damn well please.

Ha, well I don't need saving. I'm as healthy as a horse. I'll deal with my own problems. I don't need any handouts. As such I'll do as a I damn well please.

Doesn't matter how healthy you are, if you go through your windshield, you're pretty much in deep shit. On my dime.

Hey, why are you driving anyway? Aren't you one of those anarcho-primitivist types who thinks we should abandon all technology and go live in the woods?

I don't want my tax money to be wasted cleaning what brains you have off the pavement.

If you can prove to me that they won't be, fine, don't wear a seatbelt, get yourself killed, I'll be perfectly happy to have one less dumbass on the road.

As I've said before, when I am in a car I wear my seat belt most of the time, but I think a law saying I HAVE to wear a seatbelt are ludicrous and invasive.

Doesn't matter how healthy you are, if you go through your windshield, you're pretty much in deep shit. On my dime.

Hey, why are you driving anyway? Aren't you one of those anarcho-primitivist types who thinks we should abandon all technology and go live in the woods?

I don't have a car, but I sometimes drive my friends or my mom's. (haha, yes, I'm a poor ass college student without a car)

And yes, I do believe technology should be abandoned. See my thread about civilization from a few backs and that has all the answers you'll want. I don't want to start this argument again.

I don't have a car, but I sometimes drive my friends or my mom's. (haha, yes, I'm a poor ass college student without a car)

And yes, I do believe technology should be abandoned. See my thread about civilization from a few backs and that has all the answers you'll want. I don't want to start this argument again.

Stop being a hypocrite. Get off your damn computer and don't get in a car. Go try living in the wilderness on your own for a good long time before saying we all should do it.

As I've said before, when I am in a car I wear my seat belt most of the time, but I think a law saying I HAVE to wear a seatbelt are ludicrous and invasive.

You didn't answer my question in the slightest. Why should I pay for your splattered remains to get cleaned up if you're too damn stupid to buckle up? Hmmm?

Stop being a hypocrite. Get off your damn computer and don't get in a car. Go try living in the wilderness on your own for a good long time before saying we all should do it.

Like I just fucking said, look at my old thread. I'm not debating this again.

You didn't answer my question in the slightest. Why should I pay for your splattered remains to get cleaned up if you're too damn stupid to buckle up? Hmmm?

I don't really care if you pay for it or not. Use the money in bank account. Cleaning up a body shouldn't be that expensive. Even if tax money is used, isn't that tax money already set aside for road work that has been collected, and already taken from you and other taxpayers? Hell, just push me off to the side of the road for scavengers to feed for all I care.

I don't really care if you pay for it or not. Use the money in bank account. Cleaning up a body shouldn't be that expensive. Even if tax money is used, isn't that tax money already set aside for road work that has been collected, and already taken from you and other taxpayers? Hell, just push me off to the side of the road for scavengers to feed for all I care.

Your lack of a grasp on reality is appalling. Why should money I've paid in taxes be spent to scrape your dumb ass off the pavement instead of doing more important work because you're too fucking dense to use a seat belt? As I've said before, if my tax money won't be used, I'm all for idiots having the freedom to die because they're too stupid to buckle up.

It doesn't matter how expensive it is, my tax money is still being used on something that could have been avoided if you take two seconds to not be a total fucking moron (by buckling up). Your stupidity directly wastes my money and the time of the people who have to deal with it.

Your lack of a grasp on reality is appalling. Why should money I've paid in taxes be spent to scrape your dumb ass off the pavement instead of doing more important work because you're too fucking dense to use a seat belt? As I've said before, if my tax money won't be used, I'm all for idiots having the freedom to die because they're too stupid to buckle up.

It doesn't matter how expensive it is, my tax money is still being used on something that could have been avoided if you take two seconds to not be a total fucking moron (by buckling up). Your stupidity directly wastes my money and the time of the people who have to deal with it.

I said I used my god damned seatbelt the majority of the fucking time. I think is ridiculous that governments have laws saying people HAVE to wear seatbelts. Most people wear them anyway, but the fact that the government has the gall to say people have to wear one is ridiculous. I have a firm grasp of reality, I just don't give a shit about society and don't buy into the notion of father knows best and nanny states.

I said I used my god damned seatbelt the majority of the fucking time. I think is ridiculous that governments have laws saying people HAVE to wear seatbelts. Most people wear them anyway, but the fact that the government has the gall to say people have to wear one is ridiculous. I have a firm grasp of reality, I just don't give a shit about society and don't buy into the notion of father knows best and nanny states.

I know exactly what you said. You still have not explained why my tax money should be spent wiping the bloody pulp you'd become if you went through the windshield at 60 miles an hour off the highway. If it weren't for the fact that my taxes would be paying for the consequences of such, believe me, I'd fully support your right to be a dumbass.

They ignore that self-ownership is self-evident and that to argue against it is self-contradictory (you cannot disprove self-ownership, because you cannot argue against it unless it is true).You're not bringing up the Hoppe argument that's been refuted to death, are you?

You're not bringing up the Hoppe argument that's been refuted to death, are you?

That wouldn't be 'all communists, feminists, environmentalists and homosexuals need to be exterminated' Hoppe would it?

Logical fallacy, you say? Why, this is truly novel. I don't think anyone on the interwebs or debate forums has ever brought up such a revolutionary concept. You, sir, may have changed the very face of internet debate...and not just logical fallacies, ad hominem, by god man-no one could ever have brought that up before! You will go down in the anals of cyberdebate! Take a bow, sir, you deserve it!


Sorry man, that was a little much to do to someone on their first post, but so many people bang the drum of their first semester English 1A or Argument class like they discovered El Dorado or something, starts to get silly after a while...It's the fucking internet, don't come here expecting Robert's Rules of Order, fallacies are easy to beat (being fallacies) without vomiting up your text book every time and shouting "Fallacy" like you found a land mine.

Wouldn't have brought it up if it hadn't been so d*** easy. Not to mention, too many people take logical fallacies seriously. They disgust me. Our politicians use them all the time and people are taken in. I didn't want that to happen. You're right. That was a little much. And by the way, I'm a Miss.

Wouldn't have brought it up if it hadn't been so d*** easy. Not to mention, too many people take logical fallacies seriously. They disgust me. Our politicians use them all the time and people are taken in. I didn't want that to happen. You're right. That was a little much. And by the way, I'm a Miss.

There's a very simple reason for that. We're not Vulcans. Human beings as an whole are more likely to be swayed by emotional appeals than facts and logic. Individual elements may be more likely to pay attention to things other than emotionally charged arguments, though that doesn't help much.

Especially since the average Joe, working 40+ hours a week isn't going to care much about what a dead European wrote in a book several hundred years ago, if it won't put food on his table, or at the very least give him the expectation that food may be placed on his table.

You can't. Because it takes my tax dollars to mop up your bloody remains.

I spent 5 years as a volunter firemen mopping up bloody messes for free. On the off chance that happens to me, i consider my debt paid and then some. so can i assume you now support my right to be a dumbass?

I spent 5 years as a volunter firemen mopping up bloody messes for free. On the off chance that happens to me, i consider my debt paid and then some. so can i assume you now support my right to be a dumbass?

Support it? If you honestly think you've earned the right to act like a stupid shit then please, go ahead. I insist.

Support it? If you honestly think you've earned the right to act like a stupid shit then please, go ahead. I insist.

The World would be a far better place if more people felt they way you do. And i mean that by intentionally ignoring the obvious sarcasm but strongly supporting your actual words. Who you define as stupid people have the right to choose as well and im glad you respect that.

I spent 5 years as a volunter firemen mopping up bloody messes for free. On the off chance that happens to me, i consider my debt paid and then some. so can i assume you now support my right to be a dumbass?

Just because you didn't get paid doesn't mean it was free.

I spent 5 years as a volunter firemen mopping up bloody messes for free. On the off chance that happens to me, i consider my debt paid and then some. so can i assume you now support my right to be a dumbass?
No.

You don't earn some kind of special right to be an ass by being useful to society.

"oh yeah, I totally helped and built up my Wanker Credits. Now excuse me while I endanger everyone, no worries about it all, eh, I played my dues..."

Click it.
Or ticket.

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.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

I may not be able to prove what I said about drugs (as it's based on experiences rather than tangible acceptable evidence) but there was a campign in the UK about how not wearing a seatbelt PUTS OTHERS AT RISK so is clearly not a victimless crime. If someone crashes and you are in the back seat and not wearing a seatbelt, you'll go flying straight into the person in front, potentially cracking their skull. How on earth is that NOT victimless?

And if you want proof of what I've said about drugs, as any organisation that deals with drug addicts (including your local police force). And as certain drugs affect how you react to stuff (and even what you see) then they're certainly a danger while driving even if it's the first time you've taken them.

Did you actually read what I wrote?

I may not be able to prove what I said about drugs (as it's based on experiences rather than tangible acceptable evidence) but there was a campign in the UK about how not wearing a seatbelt PUTS OTHERS AT RISK so is clearly not a victimless crime. If someone crashes and you are in the back seat and not wearing a seatbelt, you'll go flying straight into the person in front, potentially cracking their skull. How on earth is that NOT victimless?

snip.

Which is funny because at least in this state I believe the people in the back seats are the ones who are NOT required by law to wear safety belts.

Interesting that it is the one way to make this not a victemless crime is in of itself not a crime at all (at least here)

Click it.
Or ticket.

Only if you are pulled over for something else I do not believe it is a primary offense

Only if you are pulled over for something else I do not believe it is a primary offense

Ah.

I only mentioned it because it sounds like it should be placed in some sort of Rap/hip-hop music video. No doubt it already has..

That wouldn't be 'all communists, feminists, environmentalists and homosexuals need to be exterminated' Hoppe would it?Probably, though I wasn't referring to that particular statement of his.

I spent 5 years as a volunter firemen mopping up bloody messes for free. On the off chance that happens to me, i consider my debt paid and then some. so can i assume you now support my right to be a dumbass?
No, the public seeing the crash, blood, ambulance etc, plus media coverage, is too damaging for public morale.

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.


Actually, the seatbelt laws can possibly cause problems. IF you are in an accident, and the seatbelt breaks or comes loose, and by the time emergency services comes to the scene of the accident, you MAY be charged with not wearing a seat belt regardless of whether you WERE wearing one or not.

In the matter of the (hypothetical) child who was not wearing a seatbelt and got his/her face smashed into a windshield. I would ask two questions. 1) Why was the child in the front seat to begin with? Children are supposed to be in the BACK seat for safety purposes. If they are below a particular size/age, they should be in a child seat. This is mandated in some states. 2) Why is it necessarily any worse for a child's face to be smashed into a windshield than for an adult? Aren't both going to be hurt? Won't both have "ugly scars" for the rest of their life?

Why is it necessarily any worse for a child's face to be smashed into a windshield than for an adult? Aren't both going to be hurt? Won't both have "ugly scars" for the rest of their life?Yes, but it would be the result of the adult's actions in both cases. It's worse to be hurt as a result of someone else's actions than as the result of your own.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the stupid getting themselves killed. It's just I don't want my tax dollars wasted cleaning up after it.

I spent 5 years as a volunter firemen mopping up bloody messes for free. On the off chance that happens to me, i consider my debt paid and then some. so can i assume you now support my right to be a dumbass?
Wow... you mean you owned ALL the equipment you used as a volunteer firefighter? The trucks, the supplies, everything? None of it was paid for using tax monies?

Wow... you mean you owned ALL the equipment you used as a volunteer firefighter? The trucks, the supplies, everything? None of it was paid for using tax monies?

Irrelevant. I donated tens of thousands of dollars of labor for free to the State. So if on the rare chance i need to use those services for an extra ten minutes to scrape my body off the road then i feel that i have in essence paid for the use of that equiptment due to my free labor. Thats why i would consider my debt paid on that account. Its almost the equivelent of writing a check with your body instead for the fire dept to come help you if you care to look at it that way.

My claim wasnt that due to not wearing a seatbelt i wouldnt potentially use societys resources, but my claim was that in some form or another i could pay for those resources and not be a negative impact on society in any way and therefore should not be penalized with undue restrictions against my freedoms.

Irrelevant. I donated tens of thousands of dollars of labor for free to the State. So if on the rare chance i need to use those services for an extra ten minutes to scrape my body off the road then i feel that i have in essence paid for the use of that equiptment due to my free labor. Thats why i would consider my debt paid on that account. Its almost the equivelent of writing a check with your body instead for the fire dept to come help you if you care to look at it that way.

My claim wasnt that due to not wearing a seatbelt i wouldnt potentially use societys resources, but my claim was that in some form or another i could pay for those resources and not be a negative impact on society in any way and therefore should not be penalized with undue restrictions against my freedoms.
Run me a full accounting thereof, and we'll see. I'm more than willing to bet that, overall, you have a balance outstanding that, no, you have not paid off. So the original point still stands, why should my tax monies go to pay for scraping you off the road?

Irrelevant. I donated tens of thousands of dollars of labor for free to the State. So if on the rare chance i need to use those services for an extra ten minutes to scrape my body off the road then i feel that i have in essence paid for the use of that equiptment due to my free labor. Thats why i would consider my debt paid on that account. Its almost the equivelent of writing a check with your body instead for the fire dept to come help you if you care to look at it that way.

My claim wasnt that due to not wearing a seatbelt i wouldnt potentially use societys resources, but my claim was that in some form or another i could pay for those resources and not be a negative impact on society in any way and therefore should not be penalized with undue restrictions against my freedoms.
Even if that wasn't total bullshit, it still won't get the truck to me any faster while they're mopping up your 'privileged' ass.

Eh, it's time to stop the hand-holding. This as well as the warning labels on bleach are taking it a bit too far. The only reason I'm ok with it stems from ignorance on the adults' side.

Run me a full accounting thereof, and we'll see. I'm more than willing to bet that, overall, you have a balance outstanding that, no, you have not paid off. So the original point still stands, why should my tax monies go to pay for scraping you off the road?

Well you would be very wrong. Im not going to run the exact math for you but let me throw out some general numbers for you and the conclusion drawn will be quite obvious.

Value of my labor: (for sake of arguement all public safety people will all make $15/hr YMMV) 5 years a volunteer approx 15 hours a week =3,900 hours x $15=$58,500

Cost of maybe 2 or 3 extra public safely people for an extra 30 min to scrape and bag you and maybe an hour or two of extra reports to be written. Lets go crazy and call that cost $150. (Remeber you cant charge for the whole visit because they would be there anyway for the accident regardless of my seatbelt status)

Cost of renting the emergency vehicles. Say we have 3 vehicles there for that extra half an hour due to scrapage. Offhand call rental of a fire engine at around $300/hr give or take. Ok thats an extra $450.

Ok now lets call all of my figures crazy low and TRIPLE them just to be safe. The math is then $1800 vs $58,500. Is that enough accounting for you?

Well you would be very wrong. Im not going to run the exact math for you but let me throw out some general numbers for you and the conclusion drawn will be quite obvious.

Value of my labor: (for sake of arguement all public safety people will all make $15/hr YMMV) 5 years a volunteer approx 15 hours a week =3,900 hours x $15=$58,500

Cost of maybe 2 or 3 extra public safely people for an extra 30 min to scrape and bag you and maybe an hour or two of extra reports to be written. Lets go crazy and call that cost $150. (Remeber you cant charge for the whole visit because they would be there anyway for the accident regardless of my seatbelt status)

Cost of renting the emergency vehicles. Say we have 3 vehicles there for that extra half an hour due to scrapage. Offhand call rental of a fire engine at around $300/hr give or take. Ok thats an extra $450.

Ok now lets call all of my figures crazy low and TRIPLE them just to be safe. The math is then $1800 vs $58,500. Is that enough accounting for you?
Nope, factor in the cost of wreckage removal, road repair and crew, and since we have to go over the total cost for your service, not the half an hour it takes, we'll have to go with the TOTAL cost of the emergency vehicles, not just rental fees. One ambulance alone runs, what, $40,000? Not counting the cost of the equipment, salary, and so on.

So, again, why should my money be used to cover your dumb ass?

Even if that wasn't total bullshit, it still won't get the truck to me any faster while they're mopping up your 'privileged' ass.

The emergency vehicles will be at the site of a crash regardless if im wearing a seatbelt or not. There is no reason to assume that your location would be any closer or farther from the accident site or the firehouse if you needed assistence. In fact if you needed assistence, having the whole crew assembled and deployed already from my call will probably actually increase the speed they will get to you in my town. lol

Nope, factor in the cost of wreckage removal, road repair and crew, and since we have to go over the total cost for your service, not the half an hour it takes, we'll have to go with the TOTAL cost of the emergency vehicles, not just rental fees. One ambulance alone runs, what, $40,000? Not counting the cost of the equipment, salary, and so on.

So, again, why should my money be used to cover your dumb ass?

Wreckage removal cost is irrelevant to wearing a seatbelt, why is this added? Road repair is irrelevant to not wearing a seatbelt. I double dare you to even dent asphault with your bare body. Good luck. Why is this added? The total cost of the service is to use things for the time i need them and pay for it. When i build a house i dont buy a backhoe and buy a basement and drainage business to build a house. I rent the equiptment and the expertise for as long as i need it. There is community accepted value to this rental service. I have clearly and explicitly covered the costs of equiptment and salary. And so on what exactly?

I double dare you

Are you even old enough to drive?

Edit: Oh yeah, apparently you're 40 and capable of making mature decisions for yourself...

Wow. This discussion hasn't progressed at all since the first few pages. Way to keep repeating yourselves!

Irrelevant. I donated tens of thousands of dollars of labor for free to the State. So if on the rare chance i need to use those services for an extra ten minutes to scrape my body off the road then i feel that i have in essence paid for the use of that equiptment due to my free labor. Thats why i would consider my debt paid on that account. Its almost the equivelent of writing a check with your body instead for the fire dept to come help you if you care to look at it that way.

You have no goddamn clue what the point of volunteering is, do you?

You have no goddamn clue what the point of volunteering is, do you?

Of course i do, ive peeled off water trucks that rolled over onto a taxi partially smushing the inhabitants, ive pulled a guy out of a window of a burning building and his skin was steam cooked and all lose from his meat just like a cooked chicken,and this image still creeps me out to this day. Ive cooked coops full of eggs and a field of potatoes for community fund raiser breakfasts etc. I dont need to be lectured about understanding voluntering thank you. I only determined a value because i was asked to do so, so i sat down and did the offhand calculation. However none of that alters the stated facts nor my point.

Why are there laws requiring people to wear seatbelts?Because they reduce insurance costs for everyone else.

Or laws prohibiting drug use?That's more complicated, but for many (not all) drugs one can make a plausible argument that the (average) user actually does contribute to a whole range of social ills.

Or any laws that criminalize victimless activity?For my part, I think it's a lot harder to find a "victimless" crime than most people assume.

When alcohol was outlawed in the United States alcoholism didn't vanish.No, but it was reduced, as were a range of alcohol-related ailments. Prohibition was a mistake for many reasons, but let's at least get things right.

Similarly, debates about the relatively high drinking age in the United States (21) are often clouded by the notion that a healthier "drinking culture" in European countries reduces the harms associated with teenage drinking without the strict legal prohibition. This is not the case: there is a higher instance of alcoholism and alcohol abuse in Europe, especially among young people, and a higher instance of cirrhosis and other alcohol-related problems.

There is, however, a lower instance of alcohol-related traffic incidents and fewer deaths caused on the highway. But that has nothing to do with alcohol and everything to do with public transportation.

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.If you don't wear a seatbelt, your medical costs are higher.

The problem is this: if I cause an accident in which you are injured, you don't pay for it. I do. More likely, my insurance company does.

Insurance companies understand this. They know that the more people there are on the road who fail to wear seatbelts, the higher will be the average cost of medical expenses in a collision. Knowing this, they calculate my premiums in part on how likely it is that you (along with everyone else) will wear a seatbelt.

Seatbelt laws may not ensure that everyone will wear a seatbelt, but in states having seatbelt laws at least some people who would otherwise have failed to wear a seatbelt will decide to do so in order to avoid a fine.

Thus, seatbelt laws reduce social costs in the form of insurance premiums.

Seatbelts do not reduce or limit car crashes in any way.No, they don't.

They just make them a hell of a lot cheaper.

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.You don't have insurance. But I do.

And mine costs more because of you.

The emergency vehicles will be at the site of a crash regardless if im wearing a seatbelt or not. There is no reason to assume that your location would be any closer or farther from the accident site or the firehouse if you needed assistence. In fact if you needed assistence, having the whole crew assembled and deployed already from my call will probably actually increase the speed they will get to you in my town. lol
The amount of time it takes to peel you off of everything you're splayed over>the amount of time a crew is tied up from a walk away accident facilitated by a seatbelt.

Sorry Bob. This one ain't flyin'.

You don't have insurance. But I do.

And mine costs more because of you.

Not to mention the total bullshit that "I could pay for all injuries" thing is.

Seatbelt laws are a natural consequence of a society that coddles the weak and infirm.Not at all. Seatbelt laws are the natural consequence of an accounting society that worries about the bottom line.

Seatbelt laws are a natural consequence of most people's desire to minimize the individual costs of economically necessary activities, such as driving is for most of us.

I don't really give a shit whether you get your dumb ass killed.

Hit the pavement all you want, so long as it doesn't start hitting my checkbook.

Unfortunately, often enough it does.

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.Actually, it's worse for the rest of us if he lives without insurance.

People driving without seatbelts increase insurance premiums for everyone, not just because their insurance pays out more if they hurt themselves, but because our insurance pays out more if we hurt them. So removing themselves from the pool does not affect the problem.

But in general, the uninsured cost us more than the reckless. Usually this is because they manage to calculate the costs of paying for their own injuries in the event they hurt themselves, but they neglect to calculate the costs of paying for any number of other people who may be injured as well.

Government and or insurance companies no longer have to cover your medical bills if you KNOWINGLY forget to buckle up.How do you "knowingly forget"?

:confused:

I don't really give a shit whether you get your dumb ass killed.

I, on the other hand, wonder why the "freedom" to not wear a seatbelt (does it really matter if you don't have it?) supersedes the objective of saving lives.

Not that I am inclined to impose my preferences upon others, but it seems likely that a good number of those killed or severely injured for not wearing seatbelts would, in retrospect, prefer that someone had stopped them.

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) ."When they can show..."

How?

I can only presume that this means that every time a person is injured who was not wearing his seatbelt, a prolonged and difficult legal battle will ensue. The government and/or insurance companies will have an interest in demonstrating that the individual in question never wears his seatbelt. The person's family and (we shall presume) his friends will have every interest in proving that he does.

Now, it seems likely that his family and friends will be the best witnesses, so I'm guessing the odds are stacked in the patient's favor.

And even if the government/insurance company wins, it's obvious that the hospitals will have been caring for the patient in the meantime. Now, how many families are actually going to be able to pay the costs when they lose? Who do you think subsidizes, in the long-run, the care that occurs?

Obviously many of these battles will be settled out-of-court...

... but all-told, I think there'd be a strong case to make that refusing coverage to people whom government/insurance "can show" never wear their seat belts would be more expensive than what we all pay right now.

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 we judge that you almost certainly care about your life and your basic welfare.

As such, self-endangering activities without any real redeeming value (like not wearing a seatbelt) must either be a matter of ignorance (you don't really realize the potential consequences of your actions) or a failure of will (you realize that you should wear a seatbelt, but are too lazy, or are pressured out of it, etc.)

We are (well, I am, anyway) nice enough not to hold either against you when your life is at stake.

If for some reason you liked not wearing a seatbelt so much that it superseded your preference for life and health, then that would be a different matter. But I don't think that's the case in general.

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.

This is true, but is a different argument, and irrelevant to the "victimless crimes" point.

I, on the other hand, wonder why the "freedom" to not wear a seatbelt (does it really matter if you don't have it?) supersedes the objective of saving lives.

Not that I am inclined to impose my preferences upon others, but it seems likely that a good number of those killed or severely injured for not wearing seatbelts would, in retrospect, prefer that someone had stopped them.

The price for freedom is having to suffer the consequences of your actions.
This stuation is no different.

The price for freedom is having to suffer the consequences of your actions.

If there were a freedom worth buying here....

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.Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.

It doesn't work like that for auto insurance because half the time it's not going to be your insurance paying the costs, but mine.

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.That's where you're wrong.

That might be true if my insurance provider only ever pays for my medical expenses. But the fact of the matter is that if I'm at fault, my insurance provider pays for your medical expenses.

How is it that so few people seem to understand this?

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

HAAAAAAhahahahahaha....

Sorry. Couldn't help it. For so many reasons.

If there were a freedom worth buying here....

Some people evidently seem to believe so.

Some people evidently seem to believe so.

For most of those people, I don't think they actually do.

Instead of rationally considering the potential consequences, and deciding that not wearing a seatbelt is so great as to be worth the risk, I'm more tempted to think that they just ignore the consequences... or write them off as things that only happen to other people.

I drive alone. I do not have health insurance. I do have the ability to self fund my own medical care should i have a catastrophic injury.And if someone else plows into you? Are you really going to pay your own medical expenses, or will you expect them (or, more likely, their insurance) to pay for you?

Will you really squander your fortune on medical bills which should, as a matter of law, be paid by the other driver?

Or will you perhaps only pay that portion of the medical bill likely to have been avoided had you been wearing a seatbelt? Are you such a big person that you would say to the insurance company, "No, it's okay. It was my decision to go unbelted. You pay the $10,000 that would have happened anyway, and I'll pay the $100,000 that results from my hatred of seat belts."

Somehow I doubt it.

It is absolutely unacceptable to pre-emptively prohibit an act simply because it has the potential to cause physical harm to others. All government should do is punish after the fact those who actually do cause such harm; anything else is the violation of the rights of those who can engage in it without hurting anyone else.Then I suppose, on your reasoning, government has no reason to prevent me from owning a one megaton nuclear bomb?

They should only punish me after I use it, eh?

Obviously the example is absurd, but so is the statement of your principle as an absolute. Unless you are completely insane, it is reasonable to suppose that you would agree to drawing a line somewhere.

No libertarian advocates retaining the current status quo of requiring liability coverage as a legally mandated precondition for driving on public roads. So since you're not required to be covered, it doesn't matter what not wearing a seatbelt might do to the rates of those covered by the same insurance company; if you don't want to take that risk, you're free to choose not to purchase insurance.You're still forgetting what it does to the rates of people covered by other insurance companies.

Libertarians really need to become better economists. You seem to think that it is a problem unique to universal health care that it socializes the costs of individual stupidity. The fact of the matter is that all insurance socializes the costs of individual stupidity, including the stupidity of the uninsured.

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.

Uh, no. So my government has a reason to legislate safety because, otherwise, it loses more money.

Question is, who pays for it? Well, most likely your insurance company or the government (unless you happen to be very wealthy and pay all medical costs out of your own pocket). If it were either of the first two, part of the cost (even if minimal) comes to me.

With insurance, purchase is completely voluntary, so if you don't want to be stuck paying the bills of others you can always choose not to subscribe to it.

As for taxpayers footing the bill, well, no Libertarian advocates government funding of health care at all, so that's really a non-issue.

And if you're not covered and you're driving and you hit another guy? You pay yourself. But what if you don't have any money?

That's what's debtor's prisons are for.

And if even with that you're unable to pay off your debt (say, because the responsible party himself dies in the accident), it sucks for his victim--but that's still no reason to violate the sacred individual rights of everyone else.

The end does not justify the means.

You're still forgetting what it does to the rates of people covered by other insurance companies.
That's irrelevant, since purchase of liability insurance is STILL totally voluntary in the ideal (but admittedly not current) status quo.

Libertarians really need to become better economists.
I'm currently working on a Ph.D in economics. However, the issue here isn't economics. It's individual liberty. I support liberty not because I think it will have a more desirable economic outcome (although all the evidence indicates that it will) but because it is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

You seem to think that it is a problem unique to universal health care that it socializes the costs of individual stupidity.
No, I don't. The problem of universal health care is that it amounts to slavery.

The fact of the matter is that all insurance socializes the costs of individual stupidity, including the stupidity of the uninsured.
Have I ever claimed otherwise?

The reason private insurace is a preferable solution is because it's voluntary--no one holds a gun to your head and forces you to participate.

Why should money I've paid in taxes be spent to scrape your dumb ass off the pavement instead of doing more important work because you're too fucking dense to use a seat belt?

It shouldn't.

All taxation is illegitimate and should be abolished, and anyway, neither emergency response nor road construction and maintenance are the proper role of government.

Then I suppose, on your reasoning, government has no reason to prevent me from owning a one megaton nuclear bomb?
Precisely.

They should only punish me after I use it, eh?
Correct.

Obviously the example is absurd,
I don't see how...

but so is the statement of your principle as an absolute.
No, it's not. All principles are absolute.

With insurance, purchase is completely voluntary, so if you don't want to be stuck paying the bills of others you can always choose not to subscribe to it.


So, you are now arguing that it is perfectly acceptable for me to have to pay for your choice to not wear a seatbelt? I thought libertarians were for personal responsibility...

So, you are now arguing that it is perfectly acceptable for me to have to pay for your choice to not wear a seatbelt? I thought libertarians were for personal responsibility...

No, Libertarians are for getting their own way, whatever the cost to others.

So, you are now arguing that it is perfectly acceptable for me to have to pay for your choice to not wear a seatbelt?

As long as you voluntarily consent to it, which is what you're doing when you make the choice to purchase liability insurance (remember, in this scenario mandatory coverage laws are out, so you are indeed free to choose whether or not you purchase liability insurance).

I thought libertarians were for personal responsibility...
Then your understanding is incorrect.

Libertarians hold that you are not entitled to compel others to provide for you. If another individual, of his own free will, agrees to provide for you (which is what he's doing when he purchases liability coverage, since that's how insurance works and all), that's entirely up to him.

I'm currently working on a Ph.D in economics. However, the issue here isn't economics. It's individual liberty. I support liberty not because I think it will have a more desirable economic outcome (although all the evidence indicates that it will) but because it is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?


Because you haven't demonstrated either and your arguments have been nothing more than "I wanna." The cartoonish world of absolutes simply does not exist.

As long as you voluntarily consent to it, which is what you're doing when you make the choice to purchase liability insurance (remember, in this scenario mandatory coverage laws are out, so you are indeed free to choose whether or not you purchase liability insurance).


Then your understanding is incorrect.

Libertarians hold that you are not entitled to compel others to provide for you. If another individual, of his own free will, agrees to provide for you (which is what he's doing when he purchases liability coverage, since that's how insurance works and all), that's entirely up to him.

Ok, I'm done with you. I think Maineiacs got you pegged - you are more than happy to take from others without acknowledging any personal responsibility. You are an example of why this sort of law IS necessary...

I can't decide whether to be impressed or DEpressed at the fact that this thread is still going. The fact that the same people are making the same arguments leads me toward the latter.

Rave on, y'all.

All principles are absolute.

Life is either very annoying for you, or you've managed to find a way to live and believe as you do without being contradicted by reality at every turn. If the latter is the case, I salute you. If the former, I offer you the hand of brotherhood -- misery loves company.

The reason private insurace is a preferable solution is because it's voluntary--no one holds a gun to your head and forces you to participate.Nobody forces you to live in a country that taxes you, either.

That's irrelevant, since purchase of liability insurance is STILL totally voluntary in the ideal (but admittedly not current) status quo.You really still don't get it.

You haven't just made liability insurance voluntary. You've made it impossible.

Your entire plan increases, in the first place, the number of people engaging in high-risk behaviors: no law tells them they have to wait until they don't have to strain to reach the pedals to drive; no law tells them they have to take a safety course before getting on the road; no law enforces a set of coordinating systems that helps them to figure out what other drivers are doing on the road; no law enforces maximum (and, tacitly, minimum) speeds; no law forces them to wear seat belts or forces manufacturers to install them; not to mention the many other safety features that are costly to manufacture but which save lives; no law tells them not to drive drunk, high, tripping.

Insuring a person for liability in that environment is like ensuring a home in a war zone. It's not going to happen.

I'm currently working on a Ph.D in economics.Well, good luck on the exams, because you haven't figured out the first thing. At this point, you wouldn't even pass the graduate class in political economy that I'm teaching right now... and I have some undergrads in there who are doing quite well.

However, the issue here isn't economics.Yes, it really is. It's about the kind of society people would actually want to live in. And I think if more libertarians recognized the predictable economic outcomes of their proposals, they'd be embarrassed ever to have suggested them.

It's individual liberty. I support liberty not because I think it will have a more desirable economic outcome (although all the evidence indicates that it will) but because it is desirable in and of itself, for its own sake.Yes, it is.

I value individual liberty very, very much.

But the very, very first lesson you should have learned as a student of economics is something called "marginalism." Is this quiz time? Should I ask you for a definition and explanation?

No, let's save you the embarrassment. Marginalism goes hand-in-hand with the equally important concept of opportunity cost, and it relates how we figure out the value of what we give up in terms of one important good in order to procure more of some other important good.

In terms of total value, water is one of the most important and valuable goods we have, while diamonds in comparison to water are relatively worthless: I could not live without water, while I can do perfectly fine without diamonds.

Nevertheless, if most people were offered a choice between an extra bucket of water and an extra bucket of diamonds, they would choose the diamonds. For obvious reasons.

It works the other way, too.

Liberty, in terms of total value, is one of the most important goods in modern society. I'd almost go so far as to say that I "can't live without it," and as long as you understand that's hyperbole you should catch my meaning. I would not want to live in an unfree society, a society that does not respect individual freedom. All of my other goods, expressed in money terms, are relatively worthless: given a choice between a life of liberty and a life of material goods, I would choose the life of liberty in a heartbeat.

Nothing about this, however, undercuts the economic argument from marginalism: at any given allocation of freedom and other goods, I can judge whether I would exchange some freedom for some other valuable good--like security (which ranks right up there anyway) or even income.

In this case, the specific trade-off is between the marginal value of the freedom to decide on personal seat-belt habits and the marginal value of saving millions of dollars in social costs (which winds up reflected as significantly lower costs for each and every one of us).

This should not be a difficult decision. It is only if you haven't learned the first rule of modern economics: marginalism.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?It's difficult because you're being unreasonable, and you're certainly not talking like an economist. Where did you say you're getting your Ph.D. again? Mail-order?

Precisely.Seeing as my question was about a nuclear bomb, you now officially get to wear the Troll hat.

It looks cute on you.

All principles are absolute.No, they're not. That is precisely the difference between a principle and a rule.

Libertarians hold that you are not entitled to compel others to provide for you. If another individual, of his own free will, agrees to provide for you (which is what he's doing when he purchases liability coverage, since that's how insurance works and all), that's entirely up to him.Um, no.

Liability insurance has nothing to do with my decision to "provide for" the person I hit in an accident.

Unless libertarians are also doing away with torts (and I don't see how they could and maintain their notion of private property), my decision to purchase liability insurance is premised on the understanding that if you get hurt in an accident for which I am at fault, I am legally responsible for your medical bills.

Liability insurance, like all insurance, is about protecting myself.

Apparently, in your version of libertarianism, there will be more and more things against which I must protect myself, and they will become more and more expensive.

Sounds GREAT. Really. :rolleyes:

AP is no anarchist. :)

I think he meant olive drab?

I, on the other hand, wonder why the "freedom" to not wear a seatbelt (does it really matter if you don't have it?) supersedes the objective of saving lives.

Not that I am inclined to impose my preferences upon others, but it seems likely that a good number of those killed or severely injured for not wearing seatbelts would, in retrospect, prefer that someone had stopped them.

As im sure in retrospect, the people who died from coronary disease would have benefited from laws outlawing sugar or as would laws that require 4 hours of mandatory exercise a day at shotgun point.

And if someone else plows into you? Are you really going to pay your own medical expenses, or will you expect them (or, more likely, their insurance) to pay for you?

Will you really squander your fortune on medical bills which should, as a matter of law, be paid by the other driver?

Or will you perhaps only pay that portion of the medical bill likely to have been avoided had you been wearing a seatbelt? Are you such a big person that you would say to the insurance company, "No, it's okay. It was my decision to go unbelted. You pay the $10,000 that would have happened anyway, and I'll pay the $100,000 that results from my hatred of seat belts."

Somehow I doubt it.

An interesting angle i hadnt considered. I would have to conclude that despite this being a valid point, i dont think my rights should be restricted based on the consideration of the consequences of others wronging me first. If they should wrong me then they should be indebted to pay the costs of the accident including those of me exercising reasonable free rights of choice. Do we all have an obligation to drive SUVs or Buses or Bumper Cars as a social obligation to reduce the extent of our injuries to others liability insurance in the event of a collision? Making the choice of a car, even if its a dangerous subcompact is excercising a right of choice in the exact same way wearing a seatbelt is. In fact it could be argued the choice of driving a subcompact car vs that of driving a big safe Bus is far more hazardous to everyones insurance then not wearing a seatbelt for example. But its free choice. So i should have no more of an obligation to soceity to wear a seatbelt then you have an obligation to soceity to buy a tank.

An interesting angle i hadnt considered. I would have to conclude that despite this being a valid point, i dont think my rights should be restricted based on the consideration of the consequences of others wronging me first. If they should wrong me then they should be indebted to pay the costs of the accident including those of me exercising reasonable free rights of choice. Do we all have an obligation to drive SUVs or Buses or Bumper Cars as a social obligation to reduce the extent of our injuries to others liability insurance in the event of a collision? Making the choice of a car, even if its a dangerous subcompact is excercising a right of choice in the exact same way wearing a seatbelt is. In fact it could be argued the choice of driving a subcompact car vs that of driving a big safe Bus is far more hazardous to everyones insurance then not wearing a seatbelt for example. But its free choice. So i should have no more of an obligation to soceity to wear a seatbelt then you have an obligation to soceity to buy a tank.
That'd be valid if we didn't have crash test safety standards that are set with the assumption of wearing proper restraint for any car that is sold in this country.

Could someone explain this apparent inalienable right to act like a complete ass that several people seem to be claiming as if it were holy writ? As I asked earlier (and it was ignored as usual), even if one grants that a person has the right to recklessly endanger their own life, why would anyone want to? What's the big f---ing deal about wearing a seatbelt? Why pout and throw a fit because someone told you you ought to do something that could very well save your life? Why would anyone over the age of five refuse to do something simply because someone else told them to?

Could someone explain this apparent inalienable right to act like a complete ass that several people seem to be claiming as if it were holy writ? As I asked earlier (and it was ignored as usual), even if one grants that a person has the right to recklessly endanger their own life, why would anyone want to? What's the big f---ing deal about wearing a seatbelt? Why pout and throw a fit because someone told you you ought to do something that could very well save your life? Why would anyone over the age of five refuse to do something simply because someone else told them to?

It's the principal of the thing, I believe. As we all know, those who are suicidal enough to not wear a seat belt will be discouraged by any fines they have to pay if they are caught before they end it all, and will thus be forced to continue their bleak existence.

Could someone explain this apparent inalienable right to act like a complete ass that several people seem to be claiming as if it were holy writ?
Would you kindly explain why everyone must conform to your will? Why must everyone else follow such strict path of minimal risk? What gives you the right to involve yourself in my affairs, especially when what I do does nothing to you?

As I asked earlier (and it was ignored as usual), even if one grants that a person has the right to recklessly endanger their own life, why would anyone want to? What's the big f---ing deal about wearing a seatbelt?
What does it matter to you how I choose to live my life? How does my not wearing a seatbelt or my choosing to use drugs either medicinally or recreationally affect you in any way? I don't know you personally and you don't know me. So what if I want to take risks? It's my life, not yours.

Why pout and throw a fit because someone told you you ought to do something that could very well save your life? Why would anyone over the age of five refuse to do something simply because someone else told them to?
Why do you feel as though you must throw a tantrum because someone isn't living their life the way you think is best? What gives you the right order anyone how to live? Who died and gave you power over life and death?

In the end, what separates a man from a slave? Money? Power? No, a man chooses, a slave obeys. What are you? And more importantly, what gives you the right to choose for me?

Would you kindly explain why everyone must conform to your will? Why must everyone else follow such strict path of minimal risk? What gives you the right to involve yourself in my affairs, especially when what I do does nothing to you?


What does it matter to you how I choose to live my life? How does my not wearing a seatbelt or my choosing to use drugs either medicinally or recreationally affect you in any way? I don't know you personally and you don't know me. So what if I want to take risks? It's my life, not yours.


Why do you feel as though you must throw a tantrum because someone isn't living their life the way you think is best? What gives you the right order anyone how to live? Who died and gave you power over life and death?
Jesus, this is a pointless argument.

"It's for your own good and that of society"
"Yeah, but I don't care"
"Yeah but society does"
"Society is a crock"
"No, it isn't"
"Yes, it is, now re-explain why this is good"

*n^n.
In the end, what separates a man from a slave?
Very little.

We all work our arses off, there's just some notional level of freedom in it if you're a "man", as opposed to if you're a slave.

Which is total bullshit.

Would you kindly explain why everyone must conform to your will? Why must everyone else follow such strict path of minimal risk? What gives you the right to involve yourself in my affairs, especially when what I do does nothing to you?

Kindly point out where I said you should conform to my will, you idiot. If you really are stupid enough to want to die (and from your post, it appears you are), go ahead. But please, make it soon, because the rest of us don't want to have to pay for your monumental stupidity (higher insurance premiums, etc.). Oh, and kindly refrain from using strawmen in the future.


What does it matter to you how I choose to live my life? How does my not wearing a seatbelt or my choosing to use drugs either medicinally or recreationally affect you in any way? I don't know you personally and you don't know me. So what if I want to take risks? It's my life, not yours.


Why do you feel as though you must throw a tantrum because someone isn't living their life the way you think is best? What gives you the right order anyone how to live? Who died and gave you power over life and death?

Really fond of strawmen, aren't we? If you really want to die, go ahead and blow your brains out. It'll be quicker, and you can go out having exercised your right to bear arms. I promise I won't miss you when you're gone, and I seriously doubt anyone else will, either.

In the end, what separates a man from a slave? Money? Power? No, a man chooses, a slave obeys. What are you? And more importantly, what gives you the right to choose for me?

If you're truly so incompetent that you can't be trusted to make a decision to preserve your own life, or so immature that you have to deliberately endanger yourself just because you were told by somenone else that you probably shouldn't do that, then you need to be separated from society and placed somewhere where you can be protected from harming yourself.

You're going to have to demonstrate that claim.

Not really. Look it up, it's statistically true and the freedom of information act gives you the right.

Plus it's been an issue in the media brought up by people against drunk driving very often, as well as an issue brought up by people opposing speed limit laws. It seems that they're together on this one. ^_^

Ahem. Additionally I recently spoke with an actuarian (er, an actuary, a person who studies statistics related to insurance), who stated that all her studies have shown that the seat belt law has to date increased the number of car related fatalities. She theorized that it's because moron's who are forced to utilize the increased safety of the seatbelt are much more likely to drive unsafely.

So making people wear seat-belts makes other people less safe. Which, if bad news for me, is at least a poetic form of justice by making those evil enough to support the law less safe as well.

"Be less safe in the name of safety!" A good motto, overall. I can see why the pro-seatbelt law people support the idea.


I really don't understand this whole "it's my right to not wear a seatbelt" crap. If you don't wear a seatbelt and you are in a vehicle sat behind another person, then at speeds of 30mph you are thrown forward with the force of approximately 3 and a half tonnes. You are likely to kill or at least seriously maim the person in front of you, all because you don't want to wear a strip of fabric.

Simple. It's my right to kill myself.

Note: Your arguement here is completely moot. It is legal to not wear a seatbelt in the back of cars. The law only forces those in the front to wear seatbelts.

Additionally the people in the back of the car will only kill the people in the front of the car with their soon to be corpse. The windshield typically keeps them from killing anyone else. And those in the front also fail, on average, to kill anyone outside of the car with their body shaped projectile.

Indeed, apparently actuary's have shown that people are statistically more likely to kill others outside of the car if they are forced to wear a seat belt than if they have the option.


Get off your high horses and accept that the safety of others around you is more important than you being allowed to do whatever you want. It's called living in society.

Er.

Get off YOUR high horse there bub. You are clearly being mislead, and you're spewing facts read from people who have been lying to you. Look around you. Think for yourself. THIS is the reason why seatbelt laws are evil. Because they encourage people to think evil things and to support evil by making them think they're supporting good.

It's the banality of evil that makes it so insidious.

Notice how he refuses to actually cite a source.

Not really. Look it up, it's statistically true and the freedom of information act gives you the right.

Plus it's been an issue in the media brought up by people against drunk driving very often, as well as an issue brought up by people opposing speed limit laws. It seems that they're together on this one. ^_^

Ahem. Additionally I recently spoke with an actuarian (er, an actuary, a person who studies statistics related to insurance), who stated that all her studies have shown that the seat belt law has to date increased the number of car related fatalities. She theorized that it's because moron's who are forced to utilize the increased safety of the seatbelt are much more likely to drive unsafely.

So making people wear seat-belts makes other people less safe. Which, if bad news for me, is at least a poetic form of justice by making those evil enough to support the law less safe as well.

"Be less safe in the name of safety!" A good motto, overall. I can see why the pro-seatbelt law people support the idea.



Simple. It's my right to kill myself.

Note: Your arguement here is completely moot. It is legal to not wear a seatbelt in the back of cars. The law only forces those in the front to wear seatbelts.

Additionally the people in the back of the car will only kill the people in the front of the car with their soon to be corpse. The windshield typically keeps them from killing anyone else. And those in the front also fail, on average, to kill anyone outside of the car with their body shaped projectile.

Indeed, apparently actuary's have shown that people are statistically more likely to kill others outside of the car if they are forced to wear a seat belt than if they have the option.



Er.

Get off YOUR high horse there bub. You are clearly being mislead, and you're spewing facts read from people who have been lying to you. Look around you. Think for yourself. THIS is the reason why seatbelt laws are evil. Because they encourage people to think evil things and to support evil by making them think they're supporting good.

It's the banality of evil that makes it so insidious.

Setting aside for a minute the ridiculous psuedo-reglious assertion of "evil"; yes, you most certainly do have to provide proof of your assertion. It is not acceptable to arrogantly order someone else to confirm or falsify your claim. It is your claim; it is for you to prove it is true if you wish to be taken seriously. A second-hand account of a conversation we have no direct proof occurred citing "facts" you are refusing to substantiate and cannot prove you were told by someone whose credentials you cannot prove does not cut it.

You, sir, FAIL.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

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

:headbang:
Just like other crimes, if you spend a bunch of resources trying to prevent then rather than deter them, you'll be less efficient and you'll limit people's freedom more.

Just like other crimes, if you spend a bunch of resources trying to prevent then rather than deter them, you'll be less efficient and you'll limit people's freedom more.This presumes that punishing people after they commit crimes is the only way (or the best way) to deter future crimes.

Just like other crimes, if you spend a bunch of resources trying to prevent then rather than deter them, you'll be less efficient and you'll limit people's freedom more.

If they catch you driving drunk you are already commiting the crime. The crime isn't the accident, it is getting behind the wheel of a car whilst in a diminished capacity to operate it thus representing a clear and present danger to others who use a shared resource: roads. It's also why they insist you use headlights at night, why you keep to a reasonable speed, why you must have functioning brakes, etc. etc.

Yes - You have an inherent right to play russian roulette with your own life. However you do not have the right to do the same with the lives of others. And being an idiot on public roads represents just tha scenario.

You want to drive drunk? Buy a big property and build your own roadway to be an idiot on. That is perfectly legal as you are only endagering your own life at that point.

As im sure in retrospect, the people who died from coronary disease would have benefited from laws outlawing sugar or as would laws that require 4 hours of mandatory exercise a day at shotgun point.

Big difference: Your sugar consumption causing medical issues is entirely your own problem.

You get into a minor fender-bender where the other driver is at fault, but because you aren't wearing your seatbelt you snap your neck on the windshield.

Now you are a quadroplegic.

Under the libertarian "theories" espoused here, this was a risk you were willing to take.

Under the "reality" of life, you get pissed off at being permanently disabled and try to sue the ass off the at-fault driver for putting your ass in a wheelchair for life. Maybe you win. Maybe you don't. But the legal profession makes a mint off the case either way. The insurance companies raises rates to all their customers because dumb-assed lawsuits like this are costing them a fortune.

Then, when your medical insurance runs out because you couldn't keep working, you soak the rest of society with huge Medicare expenses to keep your stupid self alive for the 50 years that you need constant medical attention.

And, at the end of it all, your "personal freedom" to be an idiot has cost everyone.

Funny how personal choices can have far-reaching effects isn't it?

But you keep on believing that your actions exist in a vacuum if that sort of fantasy world appeals to you. Human nature being what it is, however, the realities are generally rather different.

Big difference: Your sugar consumption causing medical issues is entirely your own problem.

You get into a minor fender-bender where the other driver is at fault, but because you aren't wearing your seatbelt you snap your neck on the windshield.

Now you are a quadroplegic.

Under the libertarian "theories" espoused here, this was a risk you were willing to take.

Under the "reality" of life, you get pissed off at being permanently disabled and try to sue the ass off the at-fault driver for putting your ass in a wheelchair for life. Maybe you win. Maybe you don't. But the legal profession makes a mint off the case either way. The insurance companies raises rates to all their customers because dumb-assed lawsuits like this are costing them a fortune.

I have no need to sue anyone. I do not want or need other peoples money.

Then, when your medical insurance runs out because you couldn't keep working, you soak the rest of society with huge Medicare expenses to keep your stupid self alive for the 50 years that you need constant medical attention.

I will say for the 10th time, i do not have health insurance, and my income earned is independent of my ability to have to do anything but exist. I am perfectly capable of paying for my own health care. This ability even exceeds the maximum paymnt cap of most health plans.

And, at the end of it all, your "personal freedom" to be an idiot has cost everyone.

No, it hasnt.

Funny how personal choices can have far-reaching effects isn't it?

Why yes personal choices can have profound and far reaching effects indeed, and thats why its so important to preserve as many of them as possible

But you keep on believing that your actions exist in a vacuum if that sort of fantasy world appeals to you. Human nature being what it is, however, the realities are generally rather different.

I do not believe i live in a vacuum, but i believe that in some cases its perfectly possible to minimize the negative consequences of personal choice to the point that it should be permitted. No harm no foul.