Contemplating safety tyranny

[JohnStOnge]

So this morning I went out to do some weed eating on some property we have. It was hot. I was soaking wet from sweat and all full of vegetation debris and dirt afterward. I get ready to drive home. I've got a seat protector to protect my truck seat from the sweat and dirt. But then I realize that if I put my seatbelt on its going to get soiled by me. So I don't want to wear my seat belt.

So I start thinking about that fact that government tells me I have to put my seat belt on because the sheep that form a critical mass in this country think "it will save lives" justifies anything. So I am not legally allowed to make my own decision about accepting a scenario in which a tiny risk will be somewhat increased but still tiny in order to avoid soiling my seat belt. And I have to worry about some cop who is not nearly as qualified as I am to assess risk giving me a ticket then giving me a patronizing lecture about how I did something dangerous (when it was not "dangerous" by any reasonable standard).

It really is awful that we've gotten to the point where we think such decisions should be taken out of peoples' hands in the name of protection by the all powerful and well-meaning government.

Then there's the other side of the coin. The reason the argument for taking such decisions out of our hands is the argument that if we increase morbidity and mortality from a particular cause it costs the society because society has to take care of us if we're injured or possibly take care of our families if we get killed.

Enter the entitlement state. If we hadn't adopted the premise that government is responsible for taking care of people as individuals that would not be an issue. And so develops a really good reason for being against government programs that are designed to make sure that people as individuals are taken care of.

Of course we don't even know that reducing morbidity and mortality from particular causes does indeed save the society money over the long term. All it means is that we're going to have morbidity and mortality from other causes that we wouldn't have had without the safety NAZIsm with one net effect being an increased average life expectancy (which is causing us a lot of financiall issues due to the premise of government taking care of everyone).

We have really, really lost our way. I've written it many times: This nation was not established for the purpose of maximizing public health and safety. Though there were flaws, with the biggest one being slavery, the idea was to maximize liberty. The people of this country today don't deserve what was handed down to them. At least that critical mass which allows for and even supports the adoption of such things as seat belt laws don't.

Oh, and I did drive home without putting my seat belt on. HORROR!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXceET3-awc[/youtube]

[youngterrier]

FUCK YEAH LIBERTEHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

But seriously, the way I see it, you may not want to wear a seat belt, but IF you wreck, I don't care what happens to you, but not having a seat belt on can imply you flying all over the place and being a further danger to others in your own car, or other cars.

also, it's a public road, and the expense of driving on it means you are somewhat subject to whatever rules whatever governing body which has jurisdiction over said road makes.

[Chizzang]

There are no seat belt laws in Mexico... (hint hint)

[kalm]

The rules were simple when there were 299,000,000 less of us around and only educated, wealthy, white dudes made them.

[93henfan]

1. Just don't wear the seatbelt. Your chances of getting a citation are like 0.01%.

or

2. They have this thing called soap. It gets soil out of things.

[Ibanez]

So this morning I went out to do some weed eating on some property we have. It was hot. I was soaking wet from sweat and all full of vegetation debris and dirt afterward. I get ready to drive home. I've got a seat protector to protect my truck seat from the sweat and dirt. But then I realize that if I put my seatbelt on its going to get soiled by me. So I don't want to wear my seat belt.

So I start thinking about that fact that government tells me I have to put my seat belt on because the sheep that form a critical mass in this country think "it will save lives" justifies anything. So I am not legally allowed to make my own decision about accepting a scenario in which a tiny risk will be somewhat increased but still tiny in order to avoid soiling my seat belt. And I have to worry about some cop who is not nearly as qualified as I am to assess risk giving me a ticket then giving me a patronizing lecture about how I did something dangerous (when it was not "dangerous" by any reasonable standard).

It really is awful that we've gotten to the point where we think such decisions should be taken out of peoples' hands in the name of protection by the all powerful and well-meaning government.

Then there's the other side of the coin. The reason the argument for taking such decisions out of our hands is the argument that if we increase morbidity and mortality from a particular cause it costs the society because society has to take care of us if we're injured or possibly take care of our families if we get killed.

Enter the entitlement state. If we hadn't adopted the premise that government is responsible for taking care of people as individuals that would not be an issue. And so develops a really good reason for being against government programs that are designed to make sure that people as individuals are taken care of.

Of course we don't even know that reducing morbidity and mortality from particular causes does indeed save the society money over the long term. All it means is that we're going to have morbidity and mortality from other causes that we wouldn't have had without the safety NAZIsm with one net effect being an increased average life expectancy (which is causing us a lot of financiall issues due to the premise of government taking care of everyone).

We have really, really lost our way. I've written it many times: This nation was not established for the purpose of maximizing public health and safety. Though there were flaws, with the biggest one being slavery, the idea was to maximize liberty. The people of this country today don't deserve what was handed down to them. At least that critical mass which allows for and even supports the adoption of such things as seat belt laws don't.

Oh, and I did drive home without putting my seat belt on. HORROR!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXceET3-awc[/youtube]

There is an interesting article on the interwebz about this mother in California who is suing McDonalds for using toys as a marketing ploy to children. Really? Why don't you take responisibility for yourself and not go to McDonalds. This nanny state will be the downfall. We are way to PC. Why aren't adults holding themselves accountable and taking responsibility? Oh that's right...

[JohnStOnge]

1. Just don't wear the seatbelt. Your chances of getting a citation are like 0.01%.

I took the risk of getting a ticket into account when I decided to drive home without a seat belt on.

2. They have this thing called soap. It gets soil out of things.

You're not ever going to get that stuff out seat belt fabric with soap. Besides, it's a lot easier to just not get it in there to start with.

[JohnStOnge]

But seriously, the way I see it, you may not want to wear a seat belt, but IF you wreck, I don't care what happens to you, but not having a seat belt on can imply you flying all over the place and being a further danger to others in your own car, or other cars.

Yes I heard that line of argument from the guy who did IT for the State agency I worked for as a biologist back in the 80s. It doesn't matter. You're talking about a very small change to the risk picture. Tiny. You can hardly make any decision without having it affect the risk of something bad happening to you and/or others. We do it every day, all day, hundreds of time. If you decide that to get your exercise you'd rather ride a real bicycle outside instead of riding a stationary bike inside you've chosen the option that introduces more risk to you as well as others. You create potential for stuff like people in cars reacting to you, losing control of their vehicle, and causing a fatal traffic accident.

You cannot live your live without making such decisions, where one option involves a tiny risk and another option involves a somewhat higher but still tiny risk. And this thing where we have accepted government suffocating us "as long as they keep us safe" and "if it will save lives" is pathetic. We have consented to being managed and "taken care of" as though we are an animal population. A flock of sheep.

[youngterrier]

But seriously, the way I see it, you may not want to wear a seat belt, but IF you wreck, I don't care what happens to you, but not having a seat belt on can imply you flying all over the place and being a further danger to others in your own car, or other cars.

Yes I heard that line of argument from the guy who did IT for the State agency I worked for as a biologist back in the 80s. It doesn't matter. You're talking about a very small change to the risk picture. Tiny. You can hardly make any decision without having it affect the risk of something bad happening to you and/or others. We do it every day, all day, hundreds of time. If you decide that to get your exercise you'd rather ride a real bicycle outside instead of riding a stationary bike inside you've chosen the option that introduces more risk to you as well as others. You create potential for stuff like people in cars reacting to you, losing control of their vehicle, and causing a fatal traffic accident.

You cannot live your live without making such decisions, where one option involves a tiny risk and another option involves a somewhat higher but still tiny risk. And this thing where we have accepted government suffocating us "as long as they keep us safe" and "if it will save lives" is pathetic. We have consented to being managed and "taken care of" as though we are an animal population. A flock of sheep.

Oh...cry me a river. That "tiny thing" could mean the difference between life and death on the road, if not for yourself, but for others. I don't care if you wreck and hurt yourself, but if you wreck and your body comes flying at me or someone I know at high velocities, I'm going to be more than pissed if you hurt me or worse. I think you are kind of down-playing the significance of that.

It's one thing if you make a decision that effects only you, but it's another thing if that decision has repercussions on others that could lead to their physical harm, especially with a 2 ton car at high speeds.

You can scream how your liberty is violated, but it's more of a whine than it is a courageous screech in defense of libertehhhh.

[JohnStOnge]

Oh...cry me a river. That "tiny thing" could mean the difference between life and death on the road, if not for yourself, but for others. I don't care if you wreck and hurt yourself, but if you wreck and your body comes flying at me or someone I know at high velocities, I'm going to be more than pissed if you hurt me or worse. I think you are kind of down-playing the significance of that.

It's one thing if you make a decision that effects only you, but it's another thing if that decision has repercussions on others that could lead to their physical harm, especially with a 2 ton car at high speeds.

I don't know if it's ever actually happened but the probability of me not wearing a seat belt making the difference between whether or not someone else is injured in a car crash is extremely small. As I said, we all make decisions and do things every day that have bearing upon risk to others. If the blanket principle is "don't allow anything that results in the risk that one person will harm another person" regardless of the likelihood that the harm will occur there are an awful lot of things that should be banned.

Little league baseball, for instance. Here is one instance in which allowing baseball resulted in one individual harming another: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8085 ... ue-catcher" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

If I go skydiving (not that I would) my chute could fail and I could land on somebody. If I decide to go to a theater to watch a movie rather than staying home and ordering one from my fiberoptic telecast provider I might get in a motor vehicle accident in which someone else is injured or killed. If my sister walks to the store in short shorts someone might take their eyes off the road and run into a tree. So on and so forth.

If we were to ban every choice that results in risk to others that is elevated over some other "baseline" choice we could barely make any choices at all and would spend all our time in our houses. There is even some probability then that if we cook something we might start a fire that spreads to other houses and hurts other people.

People think that "it might harm someone else" is a good argument. It's not. Probability of harm has to be a factor. Once that is established reasonable people can disagree about what the probability should be. But I think most people over estimate the probabilities of many events. I mean their perceptions of how "risky" certain things may be are not consistent with reality.

BTW it goes beyond physical harm to the larger question of impacting others. It is impossible to live your life and make choices without impacting others. The premise that potential for impact on others justifies government control of personal decisions is a premise that can support any control government decides to exercise. Under that premise, there is almost nothing of any significance that you do that government cannot assert control over.

[youngterrier]

Oh...cry me a river. That "tiny thing" could mean the difference between life and death on the road, if not for yourself, but for others. I don't care if you wreck and hurt yourself, but if you wreck and your body comes flying at me or someone I know at high velocities, I'm going to be more than pissed if you hurt me or worse. I think you are kind of down-playing the significance of that.

It's one thing if you make a decision that effects only you, but it's another thing if that decision has repercussions on others that could lead to their physical harm, especially with a 2 ton car at high speeds.

I don't know if it's ever actually happened but the probability of me not wearing a seat belt making the difference between whether or not someone else is injured in a car crash is extremely small. As I said, we all make decisions and do things every day that have bearing upon risk to others. If the blanket principle is "don't allow anything that results in the risk that one person will harm another person" regardless of the likelihood that the harm will occur there are an awful lot of things that should be banned.

Little league baseball, for instance. Here is one instance in which allowing baseball resulted in one individual harming another: http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8085 ... ue-catcher" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

If I go skydiving (not that I would) my chute could fail and I could land on somebody. If I decide to go to a theater to watch a movie rather than staying home and ordering one from my fiberoptic telecast provider I might get in a motor vehicle accident in which someone else is injured or killed. If my sister walks to the store in short shorts someone might take their eyes off the road and run into a tree. So on and so forth.

If we were to ban every choice that results in risk to others that is elevated over some other "baseline" choice we could barely make any choices at all and would spend all our time in our houses. There is even some probability then that if we cook something we might start a fire that spreads to other houses and hurts other people.

People think that "it might harm someone else" is a good argument. It's not. Probability of harm has to be a factor. Once that is established reasonable people can disagree about what the probability should be. But I think most people over estimate the probabilities of many events. I mean their perceptions of how "risky" certain things may be are not consistent with reality.

BTW it goes beyond physical harm to the larger question of impacting others. It is impossible to live your life and make choices without impacting others. The premise that potential for impact on others justifies government control of personal decisions is a premise that can support any control government decides to exercise. Under that premise, there is almost nothing of any significance that you do that government cannot assert control over.

blah blah blah, whine whine whine

you're using hyperbole and mischaracterizing the oppositional argument to where you're embarrassing yourself.

It's sooooo cute though. In a libertarian, "I think I have a fool-proof argument" kind of way.

But anyway, we're talking about decisions that radically increase the chances of harming or injuring others. Does going outside radically increase the chances of harming or injuring others? No, certainly not. They increase, sure, but it's a separate action that thus follows that determines "danger."

When we're talking about getting in a car and driving, the chances of accidents do increase by a great amount, but that's why we regulate the shit out of being able to drive. You have to be a certain age. You have to follow traffic regulations. You have to not be distracted or under the influence of any drugs. You make the same sort of concession by following seat belt laws

Do you not want drivers licenses to be a "thing" either? By conceding that it's a "good idea" to have a system of driver certification you kind of violate your own principle, you're invalidating your own argument. Certainly someone with the gaws to drive a car won't do so without being fully trained in the ways of the road. Sure, they might get in an accident and harm others, but what does the government care? Those who are good drivers won't be caught or violate the law, so there will be no way of "catching them" so why even bother getting certified? We could darwinistically weed out the people who are dumb enough to drive a car without knowing how to, even that may come at a detriment to others.

It's a "pay me now, or pay me later" kind of thing. Eventually (hopefully at least), it would be instilled within us to not drive a car unless we know how to do it right, but I think that's a disservice of the many people who would be hurt or killed for not doing anything wrong. We would be a lot better off by just making a law, with a small but not draconian punishment for driving without a license. It would save lives, money, and time.

The same goes for the seat belt. No one's banking on getting into an accident, but when we do there's no telling the damage it could do to one's self or others, and the fact remains that the chances of death or serious injury greatly increase when one does not wear a seatbelt. It's not even comparable to the analogies you're making.

You care about "liberteh" but your perception of it is limited and deluded into thinking anything that makes you do something is a violation of liberty. You have the right to drink. You have the right to drive (if you prove yourself capable). But you do not have the right to drink and drive because of the probabilities of harming others exponentially increases. We don't make the law to protect you, we do that to protect others. Now the seatbelt thing may be a little bit smaller of an issue, but it's clear that it will save lives, not just your own.

[BlueHen86]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. The choices are easy: follow the rules, pay the fine or don't drive.

[JohnStOnge]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

And why is that? Do you think walking is a privilege? You know, it's awfully hard to walk anywhere without walking on public property and/ or someone else's property. This thing of "driving is a privilege" is just something created in order to justify certain regulations/laws.

Do you think you have a "right" to walk down a public sidewalk? If so, what distinguishes you walking down a public sidewalk from you driving your vehicle down a public road?

[JohnStOnge]

YT, your wrote 533 words without effectively rebutting the point. Congratuations. I don't know if I've ever seen so much effort devoted to an ineffective response before.

[BlueHen86]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

And why is that? Do you think walking is a privilege? You know, it's awfully hard to walk anywhere without walking on public property and/ or someone else's property. This thing of "driving is a privilege" is just something created in order to justify certain regulations/laws.

Do you think you have a "right" to walk down a public sidewalk? If so, what distinguishes you walking down a public sidewalk from you driving your vehicle down a public road?

No. Also a privilege. Any more bad analogies?

I find it funny how worked up you are about this, yet you have no problem telling people who they can marry.

[youngterrier]

YT, your wrote 533 words without effectively rebutting the point. Congratuations. I don't know if I've ever seen so much effort devoted to an ineffective response before.

Now you know how we feel whenever you post. So you admit defeat? Good call on your part......

[youngterrier]

And why is that? Do you think walking is a privilege? You know, it's awfully hard to walk anywhere without walking on public property and/ or someone else's property. This thing of "driving is a privilege" is just something created in order to justify certain regulations/laws.

Do you think you have a "right" to walk down a public sidewalk? If so, what distinguishes you walking down a public sidewalk from you driving your vehicle down a public road?

No. Also a privilege. Any more bad analogies?

I find it funny how worked up you are about this, yet you have no problem telling people who they can marry.

It's a privilege to walk on public-paid-for sidewalks and to drive on public-paid-for roads

Naturally we make laws and regulate things...that's the point of a society, it doesn't matter if it's a business contract or a social contract within a government. Freedom is giving up some rights in exchange for others.

Are you entitled to security? Because making laws against people murdering people or telling people in which direction or people they can't point their guns at is technically a violation of "freedom" in the context you put it. You need to pay taxes to raise money for an army to defend against foreign invaders, or some other means of revenue. And the list goes on.

We make compromises to build a better world for everyone.

[CID1990]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

And why is that? Do you think walking is a privilege? You know, it's awfully hard to walk anywhere without walking on public property and/ or someone else's property. This thing of "driving is a privilege" is just something created in order to justify certain regulations/laws.

Do you think you have a "right" to walk down a public sidewalk? If so, what distinguishes you walking down a public sidewalk from you driving your vehicle down a public road?

Oversimplified analogy.

Walking and driving are not the same thing because when you are walking down the sidewalk you are not in command of a 3000 pound weapon where your elevated sense of entitlement to do stupid sh!t like talk on a cellphone endangers everybody else. I'm sorry but some people do not belong behind the wheel of a car, period. It is treated too much like a right these days anyway.

As for seatbelts, I agree. I think people have the right to be as unsafe with their own well being as they want to be. Just don't expect medicaid to pick up the tab for your breathing tube and adult diapers when you get yourself ejected through your windshield. Think that'll fly? I think not.

BTW if youngterrier didn't properly refute you it is probably because he already read War and Peace once and decided to skip to the bottom.

[ODUsmitty]

Regulations in the name of "safety" are not much different than those in the name of "environmental sustainability".

In either case, we mortage our personal liberty on the whims of some very-remote chance of adverse consequences.

[kalm]

No. Also a privilege. Any more bad analogies?

I find it funny how worked up you are about this, yet you have no problem telling people who they can marry.

It's a privilege to walk on public-paid-for sidewalks and to drive on public-paid-for roads

Naturally we make laws and regulate things...that's the point of a society, it doesn't matter if it's a business contract or a social contract within a government. Freedom is giving up some rights in exchange for others.

Are you entitled to security? Because making laws against people murdering people or telling people in which direction or people they can't point their guns at is technically a violation of "freedom" in the context you put it. You need to pay taxes to raise money for an army to defend against foreign invaders, or some other means of revenue. And the list goes on.

We make compromises to build a better world for everyone.

You need to turn in your libertarian card immediately, youngster.

[youngterrier]

BTW if youngterrier didn't properly refute you it is probably because he already read War and Peace once and decided to skip to the bottom.

Yeah, I kinda blossomed over it......

[youngterrier]

It's a privilege to walk on public-paid-for sidewalks and to drive on public-paid-for roads

Naturally we make laws and regulate things...that's the point of a society, it doesn't matter if it's a business contract or a social contract within a government. Freedom is giving up some rights in exchange for others.

Are you entitled to security? Because making laws against people murdering people or telling people in which direction or people they can't point their guns at is technically a violation of "freedom" in the context you put it. You need to pay taxes to raise money for an army to defend against foreign invaders, or some other means of revenue. And the list goes on.

We make compromises to build a better world for everyone.

You need to turn in your libertarian card immediately, youngster.

It was revoked a long time ago..

[dbackjon]

Regulations in the name of "safety" are not much different than those in the name of "environmental sustainability".

In either case, we mortage our personal liberty on the whims of some very-remote chance of adverse consequences.

So the thousands of lives saved from car crashes, the thousands of lives saved with work safety regulations, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved by a cleaner environment?


You are a fucking moron. You really just need to pack up and move to Somalia, because you have no fucking clue in that little right-wing pea brain of yours what life would be like in the United States without strong safety and environmental regulation.

[BlueHen86]

Regulations in the name of "safety" are not much different than those in the name of "environmental sustainability".

In either case, we mortage our personal liberty on the whims of some very-remote chance of adverse consequences.

There are lots of car accidents, many with fatalities, in this country every day, I wouldn't call the possibility "very-remote".

[JohnStOnge]

Now you know how we feel whenever you post. So you admit defeat? Good call on your part......

I had something else to do and didn't have time to go through your post and describe each fallacy. I don't have much time right now either but I'll go ahead and describe one.

You wrote that something like not wearing a seat belt "radically" increases risk. No, you didn't say, "Not wearing a seat belt radically increases risk" but I think anybody reading the post would interpret it that way. In any case you appeared to be taking the position that "radically" increasing risk is a key consideration. Later you hit upon that point again by writing:

The same goes for the seat belt. No one's banking on getting into an accident, but when we do there's no telling the damage it could do to one's self or others, and the fact remains that the chances of death or serious injury greatly increase when one does not wear a seatbelt. It's not even comparable to the analogies you're making.

If by your last statement you meant to say that none of the analogies I made increase risk to as great an extent as not wearing a seat belt does you are objectively incorrect. Take the one about choosing to go to a theater to watch a movie or staying at home and watching the movie on my TV after ordering it from my provider. By doing that I chose some risk that a vehicle accident will occur over zero risk that a vehicle accident will occur. I don't know what the risk of a driver harming someone else because the driver doesn't wear a seat belt is, but the relative risk that the driver will injure him or herself by virtue of not wearing a seat belt according to one estimate I saw is about 1.8. The driver has about 1.8 times the chance of being injured not wearing a seat belt than he does wearing a seat belt.

Again, the risk of being injured through a vehicle accident increases by an undefined (some risk divided by 0); essentially infinite degree if I choose driving to the theater to watch a movie instead of staying home.

Now, the risk that something bad will happen while you are staying home watching TV is not 0. But I hope we can agree that it is a lot smaller than that associated with driving a vehicle.