Contemplating safety tyranny

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:21 am

f you cannot see the problem with arguing that the decision to drive to the beach is somehow no different from the decision to engage in an activity that jeopardizes those beachgoers, then you have a serious problem. I am not going to bother pointing out the four different logical fallacies in your argument, because I'm done debating this. We'll just agree to disagree.

Just focus on the concept of risk. The decision to drive to the beach as opposed to staying home is choosing one alternative that entails more risk than another alternative does. It does "jeopardize" the safety of the beachgoers in the same general way as talking on a cell while driving does. Talking on a cell phone while driving increases risk of adverse impact on the beachgoers as opposed to not talking on a cell phone while driving. Driving to the beach to begin with increases the risk of averse impact on the beachgoers as opposed to staying home and watching TV.

One thing that always kind of startles me when I get into conversations like this is that people can't seem to grasp that kind of thing. Some increases in risk they readily see as "danger" but they just can't seem to see that with other similar increases in risk.

I wish you would go ahead and point out what you think are the fallacies with saying that both scenarios involve selecting one defined option that entails more risk than the other defined option does. Because it's absolutely true. What it comes down to is that for some reason you, as well as a whole lot of other people, for some reason think increasing risk in one way is "bad" while increasing it in another way isn't.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:32 am

In this case I accept the premise that the government maintains and operates the roads that I drive on, therefore the government gets to make the rules regarding how I drive on the road.

And if government someday says that because of the increased risk of global warming in addition to the fact that it will save 10s of thousands of lives it is going to ration mileage. You will provide information on how far you have to drive to work. You will be allotted that along with an additional allotment to allow for things like going to the store and emergencies. But you will have a mileage quota and there will be a penalty if it is exceeded. A gps device will be installed in each of your vehicles to track your mileage. Once a month it will the data will be retrieved to make sure you didn't exceed your quota.

I'm guessing you wouldn't like that and think that nothing like that could ever happen. I certainly don't expect to see anything like that in my lifetime. But it is consistent with the premise that government should be able to tell you do do anything it wants to tell you to do because they are public roads and also with the premise that something that saves thousands of lives is automatically justified. And a bonus would be that it would cut greenhouse gas emissions and thereby, at least according to the accepted view, reduce impact on others in that way.

Now, we would all agree that the controls I described are way more repressive than saying I have to wear a seat belt. Hopefully none of us would support them. But that relates to the point. We all recognize that there is a point at which the solution proposed for reducing risk is unacceptable even if it does reduce risk. And, depending on how stringent the mileage quotas are, doing something like what I described above could "save" a whole lot more lives than DUI laws and laws prohibiting cell phone use while driving would.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:46 am

He also misses the point that when someone dies in an auto accident, they have to close the road and conduct an investigation. This costs the government money and costs time for the motorists forced to detour or wait. It's in the governments and publics interest to reduce fatal accidents. There is more to seatbelt laws than just inconveniencing JSO, although that's an added bonus.

First of all, I don't think failing to wear a seat belt increases the risk that an accident will occur too much. I don't even know if anybody knows that it results in a net increase at all since scenarios in which not wearing a seat belt will make the difference between losing control of the vehicle and not losing control are pretty unlikely and there are other scenarios in which wearing a seat belt might arguably increase the likelihood of losing control. While I'm not saying there haven't been any I've never heard of any cases in which someone failing to wear a seat belt was believed to have made the difference between an accident happening or not happening.

But, otherwise, I think you may be missing what I'm getting at. I'm not saying that an accident isn't an adverse event. I'm saying that a lot of decisions we make without giving it a second thought increase the risk of (in this case) an accident or other impacts upon others.

Back to the beachgoers. They decide to go to the beach. They driver doesn't drink and he doesn't talk on a cell phone but he nevertheless gets in an accident. Someone dies and all the stuff you referenced happens. If the driver would have opted to stay home instead of going to the beach the accident would never have happened. His decision to go to the beach "caused" all that stuff.

So why is it that there was nothing "wrong" with his decision? He made a decision that obviously created the potential...increased the risk...of that happening. It wasn't essential for him to go to the beach. He didn't have to do it. He just wanted to have fun and because he wanted to have fun now someone is dead and there is a big traffic disruption.

Believe me, I'm not saying he did anything wrong. I'm just still trying to get people to understand that all of use make countless decisions all the time that increase or decrease risk to ourselves and others. And most of the time we don't think anything of them. For some reason people make some kind of moral distinction between increasing risk by answering a cell phone while driving and increasing risk by something like, say, taking a particular two lane highway to your desination to enjoy the scenery instead of taking the interstate. And, yes, depending on where the secion of two lane highway is and where the section of interstate is that can happen. In fact it's almost certain that, if you are deciding between two routes to get to your destination, one is characterized by somewhat more risk than the other.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:59 am

Don't know if dbackjon ever responded to my question as to whether or not he believes that doing something to save thousands of lives is always justified but I asked him in particular for a reason. My understanding is that he is a homosexual male. And outlawing homosexual male behavior in the United States, if it were successful in achieving a substantial reduction in such behavior, would save thousands of lives.

That's because male homosexual sex continues to be the overwhelmingly dominant means of HIV transmission in this country. Here is a quote from the CDC web page at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections

So, if you're just looking at it in objective mathematical terms, you would say that one could substantially reduce the incidence of HIV infection along with the morbidity and mortality that goes along with that simply by applying very stringent controls to a group that makes up a small proportion of the overall population.

I do not support that. Just pointing out another example of a situation in which a choice people make increases risk to themselves as well as to others in the population and using dbackjon as the jumping off point because of his personal characteristics.

If we wanted to be more global we could also outlaw extra marital sex as well as divorce. Again, a lot of lives would be "saved" and a lot of other problems would be reduced as well if we could reduce its incidence by any substantial extent. Theoretically, if we could ensure that everyone remained a virgin until they were married then remained married for life while having sex with no one other than their spouse we would nearly elminate the spread of veneral diseases including AIDS and we would also eliminate all problems associated with unwed motherhood. Obviously it wouldn't be possible to eliminate extra marital sex. But if we were even successful in suppressing it to a substantial extent we'd see improvement in those areas.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:56 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
He also misses the point that when someone dies in an auto accident, they have to close the road and conduct an investigation. This costs the government money and costs time for the motorists forced to detour or wait. It's in the governments and publics interest to reduce fatal accidents. There is more to seatbelt laws than just inconveniencing JSO, although that's an added bonus.
First of all, I don't think failing to wear a seat belt increases the risk that an accident will occur too much. I don't even know if anybody knows that it results in a net increase at all since scenarios in which not wearing a seat belt will make the difference between losing control of the vehicle and not losing control are pretty unlikely and there are other scenarios in which wearing a seat belt might arguably increase the likelihood of losing control. While I'm not saying there haven't been any I've never heard of any cases in which someone failing to wear a seat belt was believed to have made the difference between an accident happening or not happening.

But, otherwise, I think you may be missing what I'm getting at. I'm not saying that an accident isn't an adverse event. I'm saying that a lot of decisions we make without giving it a second thought increase the risk of (in this case) an accident or other impacts upon others.

Back to the beachgoers. They decide to go to the beach. They driver doesn't drink and he doesn't talk on a cell phone but he nevertheless gets in an accident. Someone dies and all the stuff you referenced happens. If the driver would have opted to stay home instead of going to the beach the accident would never have happened. His decision to go to the beach "caused" all that stuff.

So why is it that there was nothing "wrong" with his decision? He made a decision that obviously created the potential...increased the risk...of that happening. It wasn't essential for him to go to the beach. He didn't have to do it. He just wanted to have fun and because he wanted to have fun now someone is dead and there is a big traffic disruption.

Believe me, I'm not saying he did anything wrong. I'm just still trying to get people to understand that all of use make countless decisions all the time that increase or decrease risk to ourselves and others. And most of the time we don't think anything of them. For some reason people make some kind of moral distinction between increasing risk by answering a cell phone while driving and increasing risk by something like, say, taking a particular two lane highway to your desination to enjoy the scenery instead of taking the interstate. And, yes, depending on where the secion of two lane highway is and where the section of interstate is that can happen. In fact it's almost certain that, if you are deciding between two routes to get to your destination, one is characterized by somewhat more risk than the other.

I didn't day that it did. I said that not wearing a seatbelt increases the chances of injury when an accident occurs.

Chizzang · Post by **Chizzang** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:34 pm

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:
Jon, Jon, Jon...
One can not communicate reasonably and logically on topics of federal regulation, the opinions are too polar
JSO's argument on cellphones is a fvcked up as a football bat, but to be clear, I agree with him on seatbelts 100%. Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting us from ourselves. Cellphone use is an entirely different animal.

But the insurance lobby's are powerful - seat belts and Helmets cost insurance companies less so they get the bill introduced and passed with pretty good success

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:52 pm

Chizzang wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
JSO's argument on cellphones is a fvcked up as a football bat, but to be clear, I agree with him on seatbelts 100%. Government shouldn't be in the business of protecting us from ourselves. Cellphone use is an entirely different animal.

But the insurance lobby's are powerful - seat belts and Helmets cost insurance companies less so they get the bill introduced and passed with pretty good success

I'm sure that probably has something to do with it. I don't care about the sources of the laws, I just think that more of this crap should be challenged in the courts. Not wearing a seatbelt in no way endangers anyone else but the individual making that choice.

Post by **BlueHen86** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 9:12 pm

CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:

But the insurance lobby's are powerful - seat belts and Helmets cost insurance companies less so they get the bill introduced and passed with pretty good success
I'm sure that probably has something to do with it. I don't care about the sources of the laws, I just think that more of this crap should be challenged in the courts. Not wearing a seatbelt in no way endangers anyone else but the individual making that choice.

But what exactly do you win? The right to put yourself at greater risk? Is that really worth going to court for?

CID1990 · Post by **CID1990** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 6:27 am

BlueHen86 wrote:
CID1990 wrote:
I'm sure that probably has something to do with it. I don't care about the sources of the laws, I just think that more of this crap should be challenged in the courts. Not wearing a seatbelt in no way endangers anyone else but the individual making that choice.
But what exactly do you win? The right to put yourself at greater risk? Is that really worth going to court for?

Principle. Stuff like this goes unchallenged and it just leads to more and more intrusion to the point that we find ourselves wondering why we didn't put up a fight earlier.

ODUsmitty · Post by **ODUsmitty** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 7:55 pm

if you are married, you would understand the concept.

Sometimes you pick an argument out of the principle of the matter, vice the significance.

My old man has given up at 77 years of age. I am crushed, as his influence molded much of what I am today. I plan on pushing back on Mama Smitty until the dirt starts flying on my bald head. Call that crazy, but I detest the son of a bitch that tries to tell me what to do.

Post by **kalm** » Mon Jul 09, 2012 4:51 am

JohnStOnge wrote:
In this case I accept the premise that the government maintains and operates the roads that I drive on, therefore the government gets to make the rules regarding how I drive on the road.
And if government someday says that because of the increased risk of global warming in addition to the fact that it will save 10s of thousands of lives it is going to ration mileage. You will provide information on how far you have to drive to work. You will be allotted that along with an additional allotment to allow for things like going to the store and emergencies. But you will have a mileage quota and there will be a penalty if it is exceeded. A gps device will be installed in each of your vehicles to track your mileage. Once a month it will the data will be retrieved to make sure you didn't exceed your quota.

I'm guessing you wouldn't like that and think that nothing like that could ever happen. I certainly don't expect to see anything like that in my lifetime. But it is consistent with the premise that government should be able to tell you do do anything it wants to tell you to do because they are public roads and also with the premise that something that saves thousands of lives is automatically justified. And a bonus would be that it would cut greenhouse gas emissions and thereby, at least according to the accepted view, reduce impact on others in that way.

Now, we would all agree that the controls I described are way more repressive than saying I have to wear a seat belt. Hopefully none of us would support them. But that relates to the point. We all recognize that there is a point at which the solution proposed for reducing risk is unacceptable even if it does reduce risk. And, depending on how stringent the mileage quotas are, doing something like what I described above could "save" a whole lot more lives than DUI laws and laws prohibiting cell phone use while driving would.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it's important to step back for a minute, out of your selfish nature, and truly appreciate that we are the government, that there are 300,000,000 of us, and that more than a few of them are knuckleheads. I'm just like you in that I really take issue with being told what to do, and especially by the government. But as YT suggests, it's part of living in a society.

So while I wouldn't like my freedom being impeded in the manner you suggest, the fault in your hypothetical situation would be due to mass overconsumption which, ironically comes from the same selfishness that keeps you from understanding the other side of this argument.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:08 am

I didn't day that it did. I said that not wearing a seatbelt increases the chances of injury when an accident occurs.

I wasn't talking about you. Early on in the thread YT wrote that he didn't care about whether or not I hurt myself but I was endangering others because not wearing a seat belt could cause me to lose control of the vehicle and run into somebody else I might've avoided had I been properly restrained and not flopping around.

Post by **green&gold75** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:10 am

"it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Just saying, reads like somebody was thinking about my safety back then.

JohnStOnge · Post by **JohnStOnge** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:07 pm

green&gold75 wrote:"it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Just saying, reads like somebody was thinking about my safety back then.

I think that is very good. But would you, honestly, bet that the guy who wrote that would support something like a seat belt law?

I really don't think the people of that time thought of "safety" as referring to something like worrying about the slight difference in how safe one is driving with a seat belt vs. how safe one is in driving without one. Both activities are "safe" by any reasonable standard.

But you're right in saying that the author did mention safety so it's fair to say it was a consideration.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums