NationStates Jolt Archive

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

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.

No, it hasnt.

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

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.

You may honestly be that incredibly rare breed who would simply shrug and persist in abject poverty and privation should the situation I described come to pass.

However that would make you a member of an incredibly small subset of citizens.

In that respect, laws are often passed to ensure the welfare, safety, and security of the vast majority of citizens - not the few exceptions to the rule.

This presumes that punishing people after they commit crimes is the only way (or the best way) to deter future crimes.
Can you suggest another means of deterring future crimes other than providing negative consequences for committing them?

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.
Those suits should be summarily thrown out of court, and those who file them should be declared vexatious litigants and be prohibited from filing future suits.

If they won't act rationally, I won't grant them the benefits of society.

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

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

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

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

Just see to it that insurance is void for those who would not deign to conduct themselves properly. But for Mohammed's sake don't pull people over for it.

Can you suggest another means of deterring future crimes other than providing negative consequences for committing them?

Forget deterring future criminals. If you kill-off enough of the present criminals you solve a lot of your problems. And if that won't serve as a deterrent, what will?

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 only works on a small, short term scale. Choosing a large SUV or, for the purposes of argument, a tank, is perhaps safer for the driver of the vechicle, because not all cars are as large or strong as an SUV. However, your SUV is far more dangerous to other people and drivers for the same reason.
If this leads everyone to purchase an SUV, then the point becomes completely moot, as collisions between SUVs would be no more safe than collisions between subcompacts, and any additional safety for the driver is negated.

Edit: Now, then, did that have anything to do with anything?

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.You're missing the point. It's not just the person who wrongs you that pays, it's everyone else whether they wrong you or not.

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.I agree. But the costs to society at large are a little hard to justify on the basis of your "right" to wear your seatbelt.

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.First of all, a tank is safer for you but more dangerous for everyone else.

Second, there is the principle of marginal cost. By requiring the use of seat belts we get a large benefit (literally millions of dollars saved, for society as a whole and for many, many individuals) in exchange for a relatively small restriction on personal freedom: click it, or ticket.

Requiring everyone to buy a particular kind of car would, at the very least, be more debatable. Though to be quite honest I wouldn't mind in the least if the government banned SUVs.

Not really. Look it up, it's statistically true and the freedom of information act gives you the right.No, really. When you're claiming something as absurd as the notion that cops will let drunk drivers off the hook because they're more interested in speeders, you're going to have to cite some sources. Especially considering the massive expenditures lately to run weekend checkpoints.

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.If it's brought up so often, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a source.

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.Ah, the "I recently spoke with" argument. It takes real skill, I suppose, to employ two fallacies (anecdote and appeal to authority) in a single phrase.

So making people wear seat-belts makes other people less safe.Right. I'm sure that's why the insurance companies, with all of their thousands of actuaries, so strongly oppose seatbelt laws. :rolleyes:

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.Source up or shut up.

one law i would like to see passed is that if you are at fault in a car accident and the other person was not properly restrained (wearing their seatbelt) by their own doing you are not resposible for any injury or death of that person. and i would also like to see that if a person is not restrained by their own doing and involved in an accident where they fly into someone else causing injury or death to that other person they are to be held responsible for the injury or death.

maybe it has passed somewhere, I'm not to familiar with law

Ah, the "I recently spoke with" argument. It takes real skill, I suppose, to employ two fallacies (anecdote and appeal to authority) in a single phrase.
I've seen a similar study, recently. It found that cyclists wearing helmets enganged in more risk-taking behaviour than cyclists without helmets. The same may well be true of drivers.

I should try to dig up that link - I spotted it some weeks ago, so I'm not sure I'll find it, but such studies do exist. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone did something similar for automobiles.