4 ms·

I wear a helmet, because I want my daughter to wear a helmet when she rides and so I set a good example. But I have no idea why anyone believes it's appropriat

by stvswn 11y ago

I wear a helmet, because I want my daughter to wear a helmet when she rides and so I set a good example. But I have no idea why anyone believes it's appropriate to make a law about this. Risky behavior that puts others at risk is fair game -- you can't speed in your car, for instance. But to have another adult forcibly stop me, scold me, and fine me if I don't want to put a piece of plastic on my head? That's insane. Same goes for motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and drug laws. With that in mind, the premise of the article is flawed. I do not care which policy "saves more lives." I don't care which is safer. If I see another adult riding around without a helmet, the thought doesn't occur to me "Oh no! How unsafe! Won't someone compel him to protect himself?" So should I accept the same sentiment applied to everyone collectively? (And if someone wants to argue that my getting injured imposes a cost on society, blah blah blah ... we're just not going to agree about the responsibilities of the individual to the collective and the role of government therein)

lazyant 11y ago
The argument is that if you get severely injured the tax payers get stuck with the bill (US may be different) so other people are affected; I'm in favour of compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat belts, if you want to opt out fine, but pay a higher insurance premium.
- stvswn 11y ago
  I know that's the argument, but I disagree with the premise -- you're essentially saying that it's valid for the government to enforce healthy decisions when it wants to limit the chances of a future payout. This would mean that the government can use its status as the "insurer" (in the sense that it operates the safety net) and the "enforcer" (in the sense that it alone can use force to compel you against your will) in complementary ways. Why not make a law that I can't have junk food? Or that I must exercise? Obesity has a cost on society as well, no?
  - lazyant 11y ago
    You do have a point but unlike eating junk food, having a seatbelt on is a binary and can be detected without much argument.

by stvswn 11y ago

lazyant 11y ago

The argument is that if you get severely injured the tax payers get stuck with the bill (US may be different) so other people are affected; I'm in favour of compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat belts, if you want to opt out fine, but pay a higher insurance premium.

stvswn 11y ago
I know that's the argument, but I disagree with the premise -- you're essentially saying that it's valid for the government to enforce healthy decisions when it wants to limit the chances of a future payout. This would mean that the government can use its status as the "insurer" (in the sense that it operates the safety net) and the "enforcer" (in the sense that it alone can use force to compel you against your will) in complementary ways. Why not make a law that I can't have junk food? Or that I must exercise? Obesity has a cost on society as well, no?
- lazyant 11y ago
  You do have a point but unlike eating junk food, having a seatbelt on is a binary and can be detected without much argument.