4 ms·
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 com
by 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 agoI 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 agoYou do have a point but unlike eating junk food, having a seatbelt on is a binary and can be detected without much argument.