Safety vs Freedom: Should Adults be Forced to Wear Seatbelts?

[Fisherking]

It is a simple enough question. Where does governments power end?

Where do you draw the line.

If you don't see a law to this effect as an infringement of personal liberty they you may not even know what it is supposed to be and you don't know you lost it.

No one is going to tell you it is a bad thing to ware a seat belt, but should it be a law? Why?

The government is making its self the victim if you injure your self, and you think that is okay?

[HoreTore]

It is a simple enough question. Where does governments power end?

Where do you draw the line.

If you don't see a law to this effect as an infringement of personal liberty they you may not even know what it is supposed to be and you don't know you lost it.

No one is going to tell you it is a bad thing to ware a seat belt, but should it be a law? Why?

The government is making its self the victim if you injure your self, and you think that is okay?

......why should anyone care....?

[Strike For The South]

It is a simple enough question. Where does governments power end?

Where the citizens decide it should

Where do you draw the line.

Where we decide to

If you don't see a law to this effect as an infringement of personal liberty they you may not even know what it is supposed to be and you don't know you lost it

.
So you're for wasting lives and money in the public domain for the sake of your ideaolgy being nice and square?

No one is going to tell you it is a bad thing to ware a seat belt, but should it be a law? Why?

The government is making its self the victim if you injure your self, and you think that is okay?

In this case yes

[Hosakawa Tito]

If insurance companies made seat belt use a condition for reimbursement of medical treatment for accidents, would you wear a seatbelt? Repeal the seatbelt mandate and that is what would probably happen.

This is nonsense. Government forces us to obey the rules of the road so we dont all die in accidents because people can't decide properly who should go first at the intersection. They force us to stop at red lights, such tyranny! According to you, I guess we should be allowed to run any red light we want?

The government also forces us to go to school until we are at least 16-18 years old! I guess I should have called my congressman about the tyranny I was facing when I hated school in 8th grade and couldn't drop out.


Except for the whole military thing. Also that whole thing with the cops...and the firemen...



Is that how it was before the seatbelt mandate?

To my knowledge, insurance companies did not refuse coverage before seatbelt use became mandatory by law. But then, drinking & driving wasn't anything more than a small fine if it was enforced at all. For good reason, that has all changed now. Ask any patrolman or EMT and they'll tell you that seatbelts are very effective in saving lives. So, as far as this redneck is concerned they should be mandatory.

I'm sympathetic to repeal of seat belt law, with this kind of personal responsibility to act as a deterrent in place of legal repercussions. The one problem I see is that raised by BG and Strike: there will still be a greater burden on the taxpayer and more pressure on emergency medical services. To that degree the public good must be balanced against the private freedom.

Ajax

And here's a great arguement for why seatbelt use should remain a requirement. By law, people cannot be denied medical treatment at the ER for inability to pay, so the cost will just be passed to taxpayers anyway. Seatbelt use will lessen these costs & burdens so it makes sense to encourage and mandate their use.

HoreTore

Re: Safety vs Freedom: Should Adults be Forced to Wear Seatbelts?
This has got to be the most irrelevant "issue" the world has ever seen.


This is how rednecks stand up to "the man".

Bite me.

[HoreTore]

Bite me.

Uhm, whyyyyyy....?

[Vuk]

I think that people are stupid and dangerous if they do not buckle up...I always buckle up. That said however, it is a person's choice, and I don't think that the government has the right to make something illegal because they think it is stupid (as long as it is not hurting OTHER people). If people lose their right of choice because others think that their actions are stupid or dangerous to themselves, then the government can outlaw anything they want and just say it is for your own good.
It is a parent's job to make sure their kid buckles up, and it is an adults choice to buckle up or not. If stupid people do not buckle up, then guess what? The world will soon be rid of stupid, dangerous people who could otherwise hurt innocents! Nature has a beautiful way of working everything out.

They should concentrate their efforts on stupid things people do that can and do hurt OTHERS! For instance, instituting the death penalty for drunk drivers. Now that would make the road safer, and promote safer lifestyle choices for most people. :)

[Crazed Rabbit]

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

Also, ACIN, in regards to my use of the word "may"; I wasn't suggesting seatbelts don't save lives. They clearly do. My intention was to say something to the effect of "while seatbelts may indeed save lives..."

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

I can predict the future! :p

I wouldn't even support a motorcycle helmet law you know, so I think the principle is very sound, it's just not the only thing to judge with. Doing that is the easy way out. Add a dose of common sense, you are arguing for 10's of thousands of deaths, and for what, you don't want to be accused of inconsistency like I could over the motorcycle helmet thing?

More dangerous, yup, by we aren't deciding anything by a sole criteria. Motorcycles vs seat belts is obvious, people love bikes there's bike culture people belong to bike clubs they bike race, they live for biking. And on the other hand, seat belts. You really should be able to easily see a strong argument differentiating the two, else how will you respond to someone who does try to extend the same logic?

You know, you guys are arguing for a logical slippery slope (if this then what next under the same reasoning) but you understand that the biggest friend of that kind of slippery slope is simplistic arguments like "less free" or "more safe". A step up in complexity renders you completely immune to the slippery slope.

[Yoyoma1910]

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

Oh... hmm. Well, then maybe motorcyclists should be required to at least wear a helmet... and maybe even a rediculous bright neon green or orange vest.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that people are stupid and dangerous if they do not buckle up...I always buckle up. That said however, it is a person's choice, and I don't think that the government has the right to make something illegal because they think it is stupid (as long as it is not hurting OTHER people). If people lose their right of choice because others think that their actions are stupid or dangerous to themselves, then the government can outlaw anything they want and just say it is for your own good.
It is a parent's job to make sure their kid buckles up, and it is an adults choice to buckle up or not. If stupid people do not buckle up, then guess what? The world will soon be rid of stupid, dangerous people who could otherwise hurt innocents! Nature has a beautiful way of working everything out.

They should concentrate their efforts on stupid things people do that can and do hurt OTHERS! For instance, instituting the death penalty for drunk drivers. Now that would make the road safer, and promote safer lifestyle choices for most people. :)

I have already typed up a reply to your argument when Fisherking posted. But, I will do it again. There are tens of thousands of governmental operations dictating how we operate our lives from no littering laws, to red light laws, to basic rules of which side of the road you can drive on. The purpose of all these laws to prevent the self destructing nature of humans from collapsing society. Humans will often present little regard for any sort of safety and order in their society if it is an inconvenience and absolutely no regard if it is an inconvenience to others (such as littering). The basic purposes of a government is to keep the nation and it's inhabitants safe not just from outside forces but from inside ones as well. The vast majority of the country would never agree to a campaign to eliminate all government police and fire departments on the grounds that "people shouldn't be fined tickets for speeding or burning down their house when it only effects them and not any one else." Humans are stupid in many of their actions and despite how much disgust this...(Hobbes?) mentality is to me, it is the truth. Give people a quick, convenient death and an inconvenient life, and I think we would all be surprised to the extent of how many people kill themselves. And in fact I think that is exactly the case with seat belts.

Also your advocate for the death penalty is a complete hypocrisy of your entire ideology but that is to be expected since you don't seem to be much of a critical thinker.

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

Also, ACIN, in regards to my use of the word "may"; I wasn't suggesting seatbelts don't save lives. They clearly do. My intention was to say something to the effect of "while seatbelts may indeed save lives..."

CR

Both cars and motorcycles serve different purposes to society and both are required. Motorcyclists should also be subject to safety laws, like wearing a helmet.

Oh I see. That's my bad then. But still, my overall point remains.

[The Stranger]

Something has struck me watching the news about the TSA of late is the balance between safety and freedom. Or, how it seems that most people just pick safety over freedom every day of the week.

I wanted to get the Org's thoughts on a law with this issue in the middle; seatbelt laws.

For the purposes of argument, this law would only affect adults; those 18 and older, not children; and that failing to wear a seatbelt can only result in injury to yourself, not anyone else.

With those in mind, should adults be forced by law to wear seatbelts?

I say no. Seatbelts may make us safer. Putting them on is no big deal.

But the government should not be able to tell you how to live. It is our life, and if we are to be free citizens and not serfs that means we must have control of our bodies, and the freedom to make decisions about them.

What purpose can be argued for forcing adults to wear seatbelts? Yes, they make you safer, but what is the point of living life if you are not free to make your own choices?

CR

it all depends upon your notion of freedom. you can argue that freedom is to be free of any laws, but there are others that would say that such a freedom is not really freedom but slavery to the passions (you would become an animal) and that any freedom to exist must always be bound by rational law.

ofcourse if you are forced you wouldnt be free, but people aren't really forced, they are given an option, either obey the law or dont and suffer the consequenses.

[The Stranger]

It is a simple enough question. Where does governments power end?

Where do you draw the line.

If you don't see a law to this effect as an infringement of personal liberty they you may not even know what it is supposed to be and you don't know you lost it.

No one is going to tell you it is a bad thing to ware a seat belt, but should it be a law? Why?

The government is making its self the victim if you injure your self, and you think that is okay?

i think that, atleast now we are discusssing america, people have forgot what democracy actually means (and i know it can be debated that it is actually so in practice) but it is not the goverment vs the people, the people are the government. so it is supposed to be so that the people subject theirself to their own laws and therefor they are free. to say otherwise is to say that telling yourself not to eat a cooky every day is a law which infringes on your personal freedom. and if in the government a law would be made that people wouldnt agree with (such as by extreme: shoot every first person you see on sunday) they have the right, the obligation, to rise up and make such tyranny undone.

[Banquo's Ghost]

There's an oft forgotten corollary to freedom and that is responsibility. We like to go on about freedoms and their infringements but we rarely note that all freedom comes with heavy responsibilities to our fellows in society.

A truly free society has citizens more dedicated to the well-being of their compatriots than interested in self-aggrandisement. Such a society needs few laws and little government. Sadly, humanity has proven time and time again that most people use freedoms for their own benefit, not for that of their group. Thus society chooses to regulate, and freedoms are curtailed to the degree made necessary by the lack of responsibility - more government inevitably arises with more individualism.

In this example then, seat belts are inarguably safer for oneself and others. Therefore no law should be necessary if people do the intelligent thing and take responsibility for their safety and that of others. However, too many people eschew this responsibility, endangering themselves and others, and thus society imposes laws.

[Beskar]

If you don't wear seatbeltsin the back, the force of a crash can propel the person forward and such is the force,, it is as if an elephant was in the backside and that the person in front will either get crushed or go through the front window.

Either way, wearing seat-belts is part of how you drive a car properly. These safety regulations protect you and other people when operating machinery. Not doing them is carelessness and can result in prison time if you end up killing some one else due to your negligence. So having a fine for when you fail to do what you should do is minor.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Bite me.

Uhm, whyyyyyy....?

The urban dictionary should clear it up.

There's an oft forgotten corollary to freedom and that is responsibility. We like to go on about freedoms and their infringements but we rarely note that all freedom comes with heavy responsibilities to our fellows in society.

A truly free society has citizens more dedicated to the well-being of their compatriots than interested in self-aggrandisement. Such a society needs few laws and little government. Sadly, humanity has proven time and time again that most people use freedoms for their own benefit, not for that of their group. Thus society chooses to regulate, and freedoms are curtailed to the degree made necessary by the lack of responsibility - more government inevitably arises with more individualism.

In this example then, seat belts are inarguably safer for oneself and others. Therefore no law should be necessary if people do the intelligent thing and take responsibility for their safety and that of others. However, too many people eschew this responsibility, endangering themselves and others, and thus society imposes laws.

Could not have 'splained it better. Well done BG.

[HoreTore]

The urban dictionary should clear it up.

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

Because the State is both wise and flexible.

[Husar]

(as long as it is not hurting OTHER people)

So you didn't watch the ad that was posted above where the one guy not using the seatbelt got three people in the car killed?

How can you decide seatbelts should be mandated, then how can you allow motorcycles to be ridden? Seems to me that riding those is much more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.

This ties in nicely with the endangering of others, if the motorcyclist crashes into a truck for example, he will only get himself killed, trucks are also very dangerous vehicles by the way, often not for the driver but for everyone else, if the driver of the truck has to wear a seatbelt he will have to live with what he has done though instead of taking the easy way out (out of the truck and out of life). Since helmets are mandatory here on motorcycles, you could say it comes down to ensuring a relatively high security standard relative to what is possible on the vehicle you're riding.

If you don't wear seatbeltsin the back, the force of a crash can propel the person forward and such is the force,, it is as if an elephant was in the backside and that the person in front will either get crushed or go through the front window.

I'd say if an elephant was in the backside, the force the person would get crushed with would be significantly higher, as such these comparisons often make little sense.

[Vuk]

So you didn't watch the ad that was posted above where the one guy not using the seatbelt got three people in the car killed?

The OP said that for the sake of argument, we were going to assume that seat-belts are only a danger to the person not using them. I agree with you that not wearing a seatbelt can be a danger to others (which is why I always insist on having passengers buckle-up if they want to drive in my car), but the debate here is supposed to function on the supposition that they are only a danger to the person not wearing them.

I have already typed up a reply to your argument when Fisherking posted. But, I will do it again. There are tens of thousands of governmental operations dictating how we operate our lives from no littering laws, to red light laws, to basic rules of which side of the road you can drive on. The purpose of all these laws to prevent the self destructing nature of humans from collapsing society. Humans will often present little regard for any sort of safety and order in their society if it is an inconvenience and absolutely no regard if it is an inconvenience to others (such as littering). The basic purposes of a government is to keep the nation and it's inhabitants safe not just from outside forces but from inside ones as well. The vast majority of the country would never agree to a campaign to eliminate all government police and fire departments on the grounds that "people shouldn't be fined tickets for speeding or burning down their house when it only effects them and not any one else." Humans are stupid in many of their actions and despite how much disgust this...(Hobbes?) mentality is to me, it is the truth. Give people a quick, convenient death and an inconvenient life, and I think we would all be surprised to the extent of how many people kill themselves. And in fact I think that is exactly the case with seat belts.

Also your advocate for the death penalty is a complete hypocrisy of your entire ideology but that is to be expected since you don't seem to be much of a critical thinker.

Ok, I am going to ignore your completely offensive posting style and personal attacks, and cut right to the chase. You seem to be completely ignoring what I said about things that danger or damage and individual committing them, and things that danger or damage others. Things such as littering, burning down your house, speeding, drunk driving, etc endanger or steal from others. THAT is the difference. Maybe next time you can actually read my post before responding to it.
And how is my advocating the death penalty a hypocrisy of 'my entire ideology' (which I have never laid out to you BTW, and you have no way of knowing)? My ideology is that people should be completely free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not hurt OTHERS! When people deliberately do things that endanger or steal from others, I think that they should receive the harshest punishment appropriate for their crime. (and if what you do endangers the lives of others, I think that you should forfeit your own) You cannot commit a crime against yourself - that is just stupidity, not a crime. A crime can only be committed against others, and deserved harsh punishment. Are we going to start fining people for spending too much time on the computer because it is not good for their health now?
You obviously have no idea what my ideology is.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, I am going to ignore your completely offensive posting style and personal attacks, and cut right to the chase. You seem to be completely ignoring what I said about things that danger or damage and individual committing them, and things that danger or damage others. Things such as littering, burning down your house, speeding, drunk driving, etc endanger or steal from others. THAT is the difference. Maybe next time you can actually read my post before responding to it.
And how is my advocating the death penalty a hypocrisy of 'my entire ideology' (which I have never laid out to you BTW, and you have no way of knowing)? My ideology is that people should be completely free to do whatever they want, as long as it does not hurt OTHERS! When people deliberately do things that endanger or steal from others, I think that they should receive the harshest punishment appropriate for their crime. (and if what you do endangers the lives of others, I think that you should forfeit your own) You cannot commit a crime against yourself - that is just stupidity, not a crime. A crime can only be committed against others, and deserved harsh punishment. Are we going to start fining people for spending too much time on the computer because it is not good for their health now?
You obviously have no idea what my ideology is.

Almost everything you do that harms yourself, ends up harming another. Unless you are recluse who is forever alone in this world, harm upon yourself drains other people. By not buckling your seat belt and dying because of it, you have created a destructive ripple in the lives of other people. The other people in the accident will think they may have killed a person depending on how the accident goes down. Everyone has parents, parents have children, friends, they all suffer negatively from your actions of not protecting yourself from imminent danger. Your outlook that as long as what you do does not physically harm another person is completely moronic in my opinion. If we applied that same train of thought to all aspects then we need to strike down laws against mental abuse of any form. Hurt is such a subjective word and it is filled with numerous interpretations that the ideology of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is quite meaningless. On top of that, as has been stated elsewhere, injuries resulting in death or serious conditions because of not wearing a seat blt put a financial burden on the health care system, which means more taxpayer money has to go to healthcare to support the costs and less is given somewhere else which directly impacts someone elses life negatively. No man is an island and to treat everyone as such is completely unrealistic.

"Are we going to start fining for blah blah blah?" This is a slippery slope and has already been talked about.

I guess you are right regarding the death penalty, I would need to hear what your exact reasoning for supporting it would be.

As for what your ideology is, I have a pretty good approximation of it: it's an ideology of ideas not thoughts. Hey, why don't I abandon my children and wife. I'm not physically harming them in anyway, why is the government forcing me to spend my life supporting other people? Such socialism.

[PanzerJaeger]

I vote freedom.

What is really annoying is that insufferable, government-mandated chime modern cars have when they sense that you are not wearing a seatbelt.

Want to drive around on your own property? CHIME. Want to place a 10+lbs bag of groceries on the passenger seat? CHIME. I heard there was a wire you used to be able to cut on some domestics, but these days they are all chipped.

[Ironside]

I vote freedom.

What is really annoying is that insufferable, government-mandated chime modern cars have when they sense that you are not wearing a seatbelt.

Want to drive around on your own property? CHIME. Want to place a 10+lbs bag of groceries on the passenger seat? CHIME. I heard there was a wire you used to be able to cut on some domestics, but these days they are all chipped.

Then you buy a car that doesn't have one. Sure, your selection might be limited, but thet's costumer power and all that, you know.

The OP said that for the sake of argument, we were going to assume that seat-belts are only a danger to the person not using them. I agree with you that not wearing a seatbelt can be a danger to others (which is why I always insist on having passengers buckle-up if they want to drive in my car), but the debate here is supposed to function on the supposition that they are only a danger to the person not wearing them.

There's a slight problem with this argument.

If we say that wars don't hurt people, are wars bad?

[Slyspy]

Of course there is no need to make a choice between freedom and a seatbelt. Indeed the very idea of having to make such a choice is ridiculous. You are free not to wear a seatbelt if you wish, no matter what the law says. However, in the event of getting pulled over or splatted on the motorway you will have to accept the consequences. As will your family, other roadusers and those that have to scrape you off the tarmac.

Seatbelt or freedom? Pah.

[Vuk]

Almost everything you do that harms yourself, ends up harming another. Unless you are recluse who is forever alone in this world, harm upon yourself drains other people. By not buckling your seat belt and dying because of it, you have created a destructive ripple in the lives of other people. The other people in the accident will think they may have killed a person depending on how the accident goes down. Everyone has parents, parents have children, friends, they all suffer negatively from your actions of not protecting yourself from imminent danger. Your outlook that as long as what you do does not physically harm another person is completely moronic in my opinion. If we applied that same train of thought to all aspects then we need to strike down laws against mental abuse of any form. Hurt is such a subjective word and it is filled with numerous interpretations that the ideology of "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" is quite meaningless. On top of that, as has been stated elsewhere, injuries resulting in death or serious conditions because of not wearing a seat blt put a financial burden on the health care system, which means more taxpayer money has to go to healthcare to support the costs and less is given somewhere else which directly impacts someone elses life negatively. No man is an island and to treat everyone as such is completely unrealistic.

"Are we going to start fining for blah blah blah?" This is a slippery slope and has already been talked about.

I guess you are right regarding the death penalty, I would need to hear what your exact reasoning for supporting it would be.

As for what your ideology is, I have a pretty good approximation of it: it's an ideology of ideas not thoughts. Hey, why don't I abandon my children and wife. I'm not physically harming them in anyway, why is the government forcing me to spend my life supporting other people? Such socialism.

I said harm others, I never specified physical harm.

[Captain Blackadder]

Simple for those of whom wish for the precious freedom to be a complete idiot and kill yourself come to Australia where the laws regarding seat belts only apply if the car has seatbelts buy a car from the 1950s and enjoy your precious freedom.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I said harm others, I never specified physical harm.

Well, dying in a car accident certainly harms other people mentally and fiscally. So why do you support people's right to not wear a seat belt?

[Fisherking]

I think most of you are missing my point.

Seatbelts are good. They should be used. The benefit is obvious.

But Laws of this nature are infringements on personal liberties.

It is government saying you are too dumb to take care of your self so we have to look out for you. Therefore, everything is now within their preview. Government legislating for the benefit of government and not the benefit of the people.

It is not a matter of seatbelts. It is only the example used.

They are telling you what you may or may not do for the benefit of the government...

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think most of you are missing my point.

Seatbelts are good. They should be used. The benefit is obvious.

But Laws of this nature are infringements on personal liberties.

It is government saying you are too dumb to take care of your self so we have to look out for you. Therefore, everything is now within their preview. Government legislating for the benefit of government and not the benefit of the people.

It is not a matter of seatbelts. It is only the example used.

They are telling you what you may or may not do for the benefit of the government...

Your point is misguided. The reason there is seat belt laws was because people asked the government to make them mandatory. The reason drugs are outlawed is because people pushed for them to be outlawed and when some drugs like alcohol no longer wanted to be banned, they pushed and alcohol was no longer banned. This idea that government has constantly been working to undermine us and dictate what we should do for the benefit of government is not true. The reality is that government has always been a tool for, not an entity in itself, striving for more power. Infringements upon our civil liberties are for them ost part perpetrated by government due to outside special interest groups wielding control over the institution. Government is the hit man for totalitarian special interest groups and saviors alike.

In dictatorships the government is always trying to enlarge itself because the dictator is the government, now we live in representative democracies and it doesn't work like that anymore. We have separation of powers and government is no longer a single entity or man any longer. It fights within itself among the branches and its decisions are wielded by the men and women who get most involved in all aspects of it and spend the most money to tame it.

[Furunculus]

if we ignore the fact that seat-belts save other passengers life from the crash imparted velocity of your own body then no, we should not force adults of legally sound mind to wear seat-belts.

do you see how many caveats there are here?

seat-belts (at least rear facing ones) do save the lives of front seat passengers.
> not about individual freedom, it's about collective responsibility.
children are not deemed legally responsible to make life-altering decisions independently.
> not about individual freedom, it's about collective responsibility.

given the above, the law should mandate the wearing of seat-belts in cars, otherwise you end up in the stupid position of creating legal wrangles such as specifying that seat-belts may not be worn by front-seat passengers............ but only of they are adults of legally sound mind.
people gifted with common sense realise that laws should be kept simple and to a minimum, otherwise they are circumvented and treated with derision, which goes against the express purpose of drafting a binding law on society.
only fools who believe it is justified to perversely push people against their human nature if it serves a greater social-engineering good believe that ever more complex laws can ever more perfectly recreate the human race.

[HoreTore]

laws should be kept simple

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

Furunculus just won.

[Beskar]

Indeed, the law should be kept simple, especially as people having to follow it are simple because they would have the common-sense to do it anyway.

DING DING DING....

Ok, I jest, but there is really no reason not to wear a seat-belt anyway.