Seatbelts - just let the idiots sort it out?
electricitylikesme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This is not a thread about seatbelt laws. This is a thread discussing government regulations and the extent to which they should infringe on the private lives of citizens. Seatbelt law is my yard-stick.
Now, the reason we have seatbelt laws can be essentially argued to be two-fold. The first, is that people don't automatically die in car crashes from not wearing a seat-belt. This is comparatively rare really though it certainly increases the incidence of death for comparable accidents. What we're really concerned about with seatbelt laws, is people who do not die. Because these people are entitled to full access to the public healthcare system, emergency response by the authorities and will be treated at the scene of their injuries. They will also gain paid leave off work, be a burden on their employer due to the problem of losing skilled/trained personnel etc. All of this, costs money both over the short and long term. Hence seatbelt laws are an effective measure to reduce this cost.
The second reason can be simply argued that people cannot be always considered to make the best judgements for themselves. The case to not wear seatbelts in a car is exceptionally weak, essentially boiling down to "I don't want to" or "It's a minor inconvenience occasionally". Most people would agree wearing a seatbelt is actually a really good idea, just in case. Furthermore, most people, having suffered a car crash with injuries preventable by a seatbelt, would tend to agree as well. This doesn't mean it's especially easy to convince people to do it though. Combined with the case in point 1, and the drawbacks of wearing a seatbelt, this makes a pretty compelling case to enact laws that enforce seatbelt usage.
Libertarians, and others, tend to argue against such laws on the basis that the government should be letting people make their own decisions. Their logic is frequently flawed however simply due to the points made in case 1 on seatbelts - their decisions will impact others, we will act to try and help people when they are down and frequently people will ask for help even if they previously ignored safety advice, measures or procedures without especially good reason. Their are also follow on effects which simply can't be avoided, such as those related to loss of personnel.
Now, the essential question I'm layout out here is how far is acceptable to take this reasoning? The specific challenge I'm aiming at Rchanen is to identify areas of government regulation which he thinks go to far in other countries compared to America with the exception of gun laws which was, as far as I could tell, his only example.
How willing should be to let people die or injure themselves in preventable ways, in the interests of non-invasive legislation? Is this even morally acceptable? On the latter point, I would argue in almost all cases - it is not.
Now, the reason we have seatbelt laws can be essentially argued to be two-fold. The first, is that people don't automatically die in car crashes from not wearing a seat-belt. This is comparatively rare really though it certainly increases the incidence of death for comparable accidents. What we're really concerned about with seatbelt laws, is people who do not die. Because these people are entitled to full access to the public healthcare system, emergency response by the authorities and will be treated at the scene of their injuries. They will also gain paid leave off work, be a burden on their employer due to the problem of losing skilled/trained personnel etc. All of this, costs money both over the short and long term. Hence seatbelt laws are an effective measure to reduce this cost.
The second reason can be simply argued that people cannot be always considered to make the best judgements for themselves. The case to not wear seatbelts in a car is exceptionally weak, essentially boiling down to "I don't want to" or "It's a minor inconvenience occasionally". Most people would agree wearing a seatbelt is actually a really good idea, just in case. Furthermore, most people, having suffered a car crash with injuries preventable by a seatbelt, would tend to agree as well. This doesn't mean it's especially easy to convince people to do it though. Combined with the case in point 1, and the drawbacks of wearing a seatbelt, this makes a pretty compelling case to enact laws that enforce seatbelt usage.
Libertarians, and others, tend to argue against such laws on the basis that the government should be letting people make their own decisions. Their logic is frequently flawed however simply due to the points made in case 1 on seatbelts - their decisions will impact others, we will act to try and help people when they are down and frequently people will ask for help even if they previously ignored safety advice, measures or procedures without especially good reason. Their are also follow on effects which simply can't be avoided, such as those related to loss of personnel.
Now, the essential question I'm layout out here is how far is acceptable to take this reasoning? The specific challenge I'm aiming at Rchanen is to identify areas of government regulation which he thinks go to far in other countries compared to America with the exception of gun laws which was, as far as I could tell, his only example.
How willing should be to let people die or injure themselves in preventable ways, in the interests of non-invasive legislation? Is this even morally acceptable? On the latter point, I would argue in almost all cases - it is not.
electricitylikesme on
0
Posts
3) Prevention to the other party of serious emotional distress which will inevitably result from serious or fatal accidents involving them. What a lot of people don't realise is that "let themselves sort it out!" neglects to factor in how the other people will be affected by callous/stupid behaviour which results in preventable injuries. Just because they didn't cause it, doesn't mean they won't be mentally affected.
I don't want to lose my house because some wanker was too fucking stupid to wear a seatbelt, and now has to sue me because his medical bills surpass the $300,000 cap on my insurance.
Err... wait.
I am talking about the "non-injured" party in this equation... not the douche who frags himself through a windscreen because clicking that belt was a little too tough today. I am taking about the other guy- the guy who is involved in the accident (and who was not at fault), but yet has to deal with the fact that he was in an accident where somebody died- even though he didn't cause it, and it was the other guy's fault for not wearing a seatbelt.
That tends to cause emotional damage to people- 'survivor's guilt' and such...
When people die in motor-vehicle accidents, it is very expensive. When people are left in a comatose state by motor-vehicle accidents, it is exponentially more expensive beyond the first bit of more-expensive-ness. Dead people and vegetables generally do pretty shitty jobs of paying their bills.
Am I invisible? Does nobody ready what I write?
Should I just prance around naked?
Never thought about that. Upon further thinking I have no reasonable argument, I just really dislike those kind of laws.
Docken - who are you? I would have no problem with it if they were the cause of the accident, they decided their own fate. If I were responsible for the accident then I would have regret.
Smart people already know they are a good fucking idea. Stupid people deserve to die. And we could do with having fewer stupid people.
You can make all kinds of stupid connections between people on how we affect each other to the point where you're even mandating the use of condoms. But if another person isn't affecting your well being directly with their actions then they're not doing anything the government should outlaw ( sorry, person A does something that affects him and institution X burdens person B with it isn't a direct connection). It's that simple to me. It's up to us to culturally learn these lessons.
Because in a head-on collision, the tard not wearing his seatbelt might come rocketing through the windshield of his car, right into/through mine. Or in a rollover, or something where someone is ejected from the vehicle, they've been turned into a relatively heavy object moving at a pretty high speed. If they hit anyone else, it's going to fuck the bystander up pretty good.
I would also say that employers should be able to sack people who render themselves unable to work out of stupidity, and certainly not have to pay them in their absence, nor could they sue for damages. Hell, I would allow other people involved who got traumatized sue their crippled ass.
Because training employees has absolutely no cost to employers. And because people hurting themselves from stupidity has no costs apparently to the government in health bills. Or others in psychological trauma (survivor's guilt etc.). Poor people aren't a problem in society. Hell, why do we help anyone? Momentary lapse in judgement? You should absolutely be punished heavily for it! Inability to comprehend the situation fully (through whatever means, people often go years without having things explained in a way which clicks for them) - then I guess the only way to teach you is a trip through a windshield! There's no possible way we might do this in a way which doesn't actually negatively effect anyone, like enacting legislation requiring seatbelts...
Or in the case of my friend, chosing to not wear your seatbelt might leave you dead, with 3 kids left behind. Who do you think is paying for their social security benefits right now? (Hint: It isn't him...)
I used to think that seatbelt laws were a stupid infringment upon my liberty. Then I grew up and realized it's one of those laws that actually is for the benefit of us all. I mean, it's not as if there is some seatbelt manufacturers lobby that is secretly working against our freedom for the benefit of their business. It's probably one of the few win-win laws on the books.
The problem with your suggestion is that it leads down a fairly unpalettable path.
For example, using that logic, it would be quite reasonable to suggest that all drugs should be decriminalised. Any crimes committed while intoxicated should still be prosecuted of course (they are 'stupid' for taking drugs in the first place, so their intoxication should not provide any defence).
Looking at history, I don't think its a stretch to say that allowing Joe Six-pack unfettered access to Heroin and Ice (crystal meth) is a recipe for total societal breakdown (I point to the Opium wars and Chinese addiction in the late 1800s).
Point is, humanity in general is retarded and needs to be regulated to save us from ourselves. That is the duty of Government, to step in and prevent our stupidity from destroying us through planning and foresight. Granted, this does not always happen in practice...
Issues are more complex than just "as long as it doesn't directly injure someone, I should be able to do it!" Society is more complex... laws which on the surface appear to be intrusive can often have far greater protective value than we may realise.
On the other hand, if I get my stupid self adiccted to heroin and then kill you for your wallet so I can buy more, that's a pretty direct impact on your life. My drugs have a direct impact on your life.
Hoz is still wrong, but this isn't why he's wrong. He's wrong because it's stupid to draw a major distinction between 'direct' and 'indirect' effects of other people's stupidity, and because causing severe mental trauma to innocent people is a pretty direct effect anyway.
Edit: or decapitating the front-seat driver, even.
We are arguing about the same thing.
My whole example was to point out the absurdity of direct/indirect correlation.
I'm going to address the parts that actually sounded like points.
If you are unable to comprehend that seat belts make you safe, you shouldn't be driving, and in the case of passengers should be under supervision.
With regard to medical bills, I believe in medical insurance that would not honor claims caused by carelessness, so people who did not use a belt would be liable for the bills, and also for anyone injured or traumatized, which is what I think should compel people to wear them.
And not wearing a belt is hardly a momentary lapse. The knowledge is there and hard to miss, so if they don't act on it they should take responsibility, but it remains up to them.
Do you want to legislate that no one can potentially inflict any harm on another? If you don't trust people to take their own life into their hands, you might as well ban ladders, since no only could they off it, someone might see and be traumatized, or they might drop something on a passerby.
Note that I am absolutely not against educating people about what good seatbelts do. Thats like a 10 minute video in school and can be in any driving course.
I expressed that poorly. What I was trying to say was that drugs have a direct impact on lives, so they're not a good example to use against him. He's saying 'we should allow people to do things that don't have a direct impact on other people's lives." Thus, his logic does not lead to 'legalize drugs.'
It still seems like you just totally are ignoring his arguement though. My personal opinion is that in most cases people should be allowed to do things that don't harm others. The reason for that is simple liberty. But beyond that, it isn't the job of the governement to be our personal babysitters, or tell us how we should live because its safer/they perfer it/whatever other reason.
That being said, the seat belt laws are something i still support, mostly because there is never really a situation where not wearing one is a good idea. What you outlined in your first post discusses that, so I won't go further.
Anyway, that drug argument is actually a good one for not affecting others. I mean if drugs were legal, they really wouldnt kill you to obtain more....they would go to the store and pick some up. Just because you take drugs, doesnt make you irresponsible, hell everyone takes legal drugs all the time for iffy reasons. Who is the government to prevent some people from profiting, and another from enjoying, the drugs that we consider illegal. Obviously safty is an argument, but how far down that road can you really go without losing a lot of freedom? I guess it sort of boils down to how much is the safty of a person, doing what they want (which could still be done illegally anyway), worth to the general public. IE. enforcings, infringing upon liberties, etc....
Your entire point is "I think I'm so intelligent and never make mistakes, so clearly we should punish people harshly for things"
Of course it's also "I can't read or respond to the OP" - which - funnily enough - addressed exactly how ensuring everyone wears seatbelts affects more then just them.
EDIT: Also, a ladder is a fucking strawman because clearly there's some use for a ladder. What use is there for not wearing a seatbelt? Any? At all?
Conclusion: you're a fucking retard who can't make a cogent argument or even comprehend any other argument. Try quoting my OP because the part you quoted was me circuitously calling your argument stupid, but since you missed that I guess I'll just call you stupid till further evidence demonstrates to the contrary.
The whole point of our argument is that things like not wearing a seatbelt do harm others, in a whole variety of ways.
I'm currently being blown away by the number of people who seem to not care about people dying for careless reasons just because explaining things to them directly may not work as well. Jesus fuck, I should have picked up an OH&S example instead - but I'd probably get the same arrogant response.
(this isn't directed at you Crimson)
And these regulations limit social progress. If you need a law to force you to take the most basic precautions for personal safety then there is something wrong with you specifically or the culture you live in. The two main things that drive human progress of any kind are conflict and technology (of course they affect each other too). I'm not advocating conflict, it doesn't always end well. But we need to have an overarching standard to judge our laws by, either protectionist or personal freedom. If the ethical standard stands in the middle, as it does now, or protectionist then that gives government the right to make pretty much any stupid regulation they want under the guise of practical purposes (oh hey hey... sugar is banned!). And they do this quite a lot in countries.
Being in the middle is pretty freaking dumb. Like giving alcohol free reign on society by allowing advertising to permeate the culture and make people think drinking is having a dick but banning drugs. Hypocrisy only works against society. Whatever we do, I say we stop being on the fence about it. And I'm for using culture to promote the healthy choice, not using laws to ban personal choice.
Which is the point - everyone loses from people being injured in preventable accidents because it's money that's not going into whatever-institution-you-feel-is-broken.
Your argument is akin to "graffiti hurts no one because the council pays to take it off so let's make it legal"
Ok, I realise this is getting off-topic, so I will keep it brief.
I dispute how you define "direct" versus "indirect"... which is fairly ironic considering that this is what our argument is about.
Suffice to say I place a higher burdern on the definition "direct" and your interpretation of drug use and its results does not satisfy that burden. Its a minor point, we are in broad agreement.
Ultimately, I think where people's lives are on the line, the Government should step in to prevent gross stupidity from becoming the norm. I think many of us on PA forget that we are not the majority on this planet.
Case in point, I just came back from Hanoi in Vietnam. There are no real safety laws to speak of there. In the north of Vietnam, the road death toll runs something like 2000 people a month.
But, see, you being on heroin has a serious negative effect on society as a whole, and also on the little old lady he mugs for her wallet.
Full out personal freedom is dumb, because people make stuid choices that harm other poeple, and there's no such thing as a choice that only affects you directly. Full out protectionism is also dumb, because, to an extent, people have a right to make stupid choices. On the fence is the only sensible place to be. The problem is to work out where the fence is, exactly.
In general, I agree, and don't care enough to argue over the minor differences in our views.
Letting people take responsibility of their actions is not the same as punishment.
I have read it and said how I disagree with it.
Sorry if my analogy wasn't up to your standards, but the condom one was taken. And if there is no 'use' to not wearing a seatbelt, why do we need to legislate for it, people will just wear them.
I am comprehending and disagreeing. More importantly, I'm not hurling insults over a difference in opinion.
Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier. You need to have certain laws that are for our own good, but not so much to infringe upon all of our liberty. The whole problem becomes: where do you draw the line?
It probably needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It's very hard to make a broad generalisation about the whole topic.