Poll: Should wearing seatbelts be a law?
Yes
No
Indifferent
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Are seatbelt laws unconstitutional?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2013, 05:44 AM
RE: Are seatbelt laws unconstitutional?
What a childish argument. Should the state legislate human behavior is a legitimate question.

When the state may end up supporting a person badly injured in a crash because that person has not done a simple thing to protect their self the state (or even the collective if you like) has the right/obligation to force the individual to protect their self.

No doubt that certain vehicular laws are intended to extract money from the public. I was as much as told so by a former California Highway patrol when I complained about what I thought was a bogus fine for "speeding". Certain aspects of laws associated with driving are in fact means to extract money from the public. I will not deny that.

Laws that are intended to protect the public from unnecessary expense are legitimate. Would the anarchist collective simply kill the permanently paralyzed person because someone was not wearing a seat belt or would they ask that person to pay for their own care. That is as reasonable a question as are seat belt laws intrusive. May I have an answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Are seatbelt laws unconstitutional?
(06-05-2013 05:44 AM)JAH Wrote:  What a childish argument. Should the state legislate human behavior is a legitimate question.

Only if one takes the a priori position that the state should exist.

Quote:When the state may end up supporting a person badly injured in a crash because that person has not done a simple thing to protect their self the state (or even the collective if you like) has the right/obligation to force the individual to protect their self.

See the above answer. And, the state does not have to support people. That hasn't always been the case and when it wasn't, there were other organizations that helped (and still are) those in genuine need of help. In the absence of having half of one's income forcibly extracted at the point of a gun, there is no question that modern charities would be far better funded and thus, far better equipped to help those in genuine need.

Quote:No doubt that certain vehicular laws are intended to extract money from the public. I was as much as told so by a former California Highway patrol when I complained about what I thought was a bogus fine for "speeding". Certain aspects of laws associated with driving are in fact means to extract money from the public. I will not deny that.

You say that as though you're a fish talking about the water in which he swims.

Quote:Laws that are intended to protect the public from unnecessary expense are legitimate. Would the anarchist collective simply kill the permanently paralyzed person because someone was not wearing a seat belt or would they ask that person to pay for their own care. That is as reasonable a question as are seat belt laws intrusive. May I have an answer.

Why do you jump immediately to the assumption that a person who was injured in a car wreck would be murdered by some imaginary collective*? That's a bit of a baseless, macabre presumption, wouldn't you agree?

Of course a person would be expected to pay for his own care in an accident that was his own fault. That's no different than what statists expect today. Well, save the socialist and communist statists who don't believe anyone should ever be responsible for their own actions unless they happen to own a business.

And, in the event that the accident weren't the injured person's fault, the person who caused the accident would be expected to pay for his medical expenses, lost wages, et al... again, exactly as it is expected today.


*Imaginary collective: Anarchist collective is something of an oxymoron, in the context you presented it. While it is true that in a voluntary society, there would be socially acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, the collective enforcement of those social rules would not mirror the intrusive, violent means of enforcement we see in statist societies. In a voluntary society, and even in a statist society to some degree, social norms are enforced through ostracism rather than through arbitrary laws and guns. Think of how atheists are ostracized by the majority of Christians. Now remove the irrational and arbitrary reasons for ostracization and replace them with rational, legitimate reasons.

As for how a rational society would enforce seat belt laws, that's simple. It would be done through insurance providers and road owners. If I own a stretch of highway, I want my road to be as safe as possible because I have to make my potential customers feel at ease when using my road. One simple way of doing that is to require my customers to wear their seat belts. If caught on my roadway not wearing a seat belt, you are no longer permitted to travel on my road. Or, I could make a graduated risk assessment of driving habits and charge those who don't wear seat belts a higher premium for driving on my roads. And if you didn't like that there were drivers on the road not wearing seat belts, then you wouldn't have to travel on my roads and you wouldn't have to pay me a nickel.

Another peaceful means of enforcing seat belt usage is through insurance regulation. Obviously, an insurer wants to mitigate his risk of paying high medical bills when an accident occurs and obviously, seat belts do just that for automobile occupants. Thus, if you want insurance from my company, you will wear a seat belt.

Those are peaceful means of ensuring that drivers wear their belts and they are voluntary in that those who refuse to wear seat belts are free to not wear them. They just face higher costs as a result. And, no one is pointing guns at them.

Surely you wouldn't argue that a 50 year old, lifetime smoker, daily consumer of alcohol who doesn't excercize and who eats poorly should pay the exact same health insurance premium as a twenty year old non smoker who follows an excercise and nutrition regimen. And if you would, there's not much else for us to talk about. Wink

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2013, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2013 09:03 AM by JAH.)
RE: Are seatbelt laws unconstitutional?
bbeljefe, you make a long winded argument seeming in opposition to my prior post. In the end you agree that no matter how a society is ordered the use of seat belts when driving is something that is generally in the societies best interest, the intent of my prior post. You simply find ways for this to be done absent the mechanism of a state.

I have much the same feeling about the use of the idea of the state as you do. I suspect there is a very large difference in that I come at that from a feeling of community with the people and you come at that from a feeling of the protection of capital.

The OP asked if seat belt laws were unconstitutional. Does not the question itself recognize a state.

You in your argument above reject the idea of the state and correctly point out that much of what it does is to extract money from the public and reinforce its power over people. You will get no argument on that from me.

You also argue that seat belts have a positive impact on the safety of vehicle occupants, you only offer that there are other ways of coercion to make people comply with their use. Well you do not make that argument directly but it is implied by your requiring higher fees for using your road.

Given the fact of the state, you and I both know we are a very long way from a stateless society, seat belt laws make a bunch more sense than some of the other laws that exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2013, 10:13 PM
RE: Are seatbelt laws unconstitutional?
(07-05-2013 09:00 AM)JAH Wrote:  bbeljefe, you make a long winded argument seeming in opposition to my prior post. In the end you agree that no matter how a society is ordered the use of seat belts when driving is something that is generally in the societies best interest, the intent of my prior post. You simply find ways for this to be done absent the mechanism of a state.

I have much the same feeling about the use of the idea of the state as you do. I suspect there is a very large difference in that I come at that from a feeling of community with the people and you come at that from a feeling of the protection of capital.

The OP asked if seat belt laws were unconstitutional. Does not the question itself recognize a state.

You in your argument above reject the idea of the state and correctly point out that much of what it does is to extract money from the public and reinforce its power over people. You will get no argument on that from me.

You also argue that seat belts have a positive impact on the safety of vehicle occupants, you only offer that there are other ways of coercion to make people comply with their use. Well you do not make that argument directly but it is implied by your requiring higher fees for using your road.

Given the fact of the state, you and I both know we are a very long way from a stateless society, seat belt laws make a bunch more sense than some of the other laws that exist.

LOL... ask my wife about how long winded I can be. From both ends. Big Grin


But here's the difference between your argument (the statist position) and mine (the voluntarist position)... You make an argument from effect or, as it's better known to some, the ends justify the means. I don't abide that position because it leaves open not only the possibility of coercion... it necessarily endorses coercion. I can justify murder with an argument from effect, and the state does so on a daily basis.

My argument is an argument from morality and it does not include coercion, although I understand why you think it does. You argue that an insurance company which charges a higher premium for a non seat belt wearer is engaging in coercion. That is a false assumption, because the potential customer of the insurance company does not have to trade with that company. As a simple analogy, I could contact Sony and tell them I want to buy a tv but that I refuse to pay for a remote control. They can respond to me that they refuse to remove the remote control from the box and that if I buy one of their televisions, it must be with the remote included. Have they initiated force against me? Is there coercion? No. I don't have to buy anything from them.

With the state, however... I am forced to fund the roads they build even if I never choose to own or drive a car. And yes, I will surely have to ride in a car at some point but still, I have to pay for all of the roads and... the cab company my no driving ass hires is forced to pay an extra fee to the state, ostensibly because they're carrying around people who aren't paying for the road use through driving license fees. We could mish mash the overlapping of fees, permits and taxes for pages here but I think you get my point. In the end, I can not choose to be a non driver and only pay for road use as needed in the statist environment.

But the worst part of it is that if I refuse to pay... the business end of a gun awaits me. If I have no car and only travel by public transport, cab or ambulance, all of my road fees are included in those costs but... if I refuse to pay that portion of my taxes and I refuse to the letters they send me in demand of payment and I refuse to let the men in blue suits into my house to kidnap me for not paying those fees I didn't incur.... they will shoot me dead, if that's what it takes.

When's the last time you heard that Wal Mart employees shot someone dead for not paying a shopping cart fee? Has mall security slapped the cuffs on you and rifled through all of your belongings because your tail lamp was out? Has Nike ever forced you to pay for flying robots that murder children in another part of the world?

I'm not against rules, I'm against coercion. The difference is being able to opt out without having guns shoved in your neck.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: