2 ms·

The seatbelt argument is not about saving people's lives, its about not forcing people to do a precaution. If you can make the argument that you can force someo

The seatbelt argument is not about saving people's lives, its about not forcing people to do a precaution. If you can make the argument that you can force someone to use a seatbelt for his own protection, can you ban alcohol? loud music? driving altogether? bad food? Bathtubs? What is fundamentally different of the seatbelt than the other million things that endanger our lives everyday and we live with ?

azinman2 9y ago
I'm guessing the probability for death is far higher, or rather, the public safety benefit greatly outweighs the tiny cost. We also have regulations on building safety and construction, or would you rather not force people to have the precaution of getting a structural engineer when building homes and buildings? Alcohol has been banned for a while, but eventually it was decided as a society that we were willing to accept that risk and negative outcome. Bad food is also banned via food safety standards via the FDA. I could keep going on... but ultimately everything comes down to a cost : benefit analysis that's done collectively as a society. Recently we have the example of marijuana being rethought as a society and now those bans are largely going away. Things can shift in either direction.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > I'm guessing the probability for death is far higher, or rather, the public safety benefit greatly outweighs the tiny cost. The tiny cost? First, its a tremendous cost! Why allow any 2 types of cars with different safety features? If safety is paramount on a car, then we should only one model: the safest. Second, the probability of death varies wth many activities. For example, biking is very dangerous in SF. So are many outdoor activities like mountain climbing. Or diving. There is a case for the seatbelt because when people die in a car accident, there are externalities, but forcing the seatbelt to protect someone is a paternalistic idea. > We also have regulations on building safety and construction, or would you rather not force people to have the precaution of getting a structural engineer when building homes and buildings? In this case, this is the safety of others. Very different to the safety of yourself: the whole concept of libertarianism is self-posession,that who you are is only owned by yourself. It is surely acceptable to use the powers of the state to protect one from others. > Alcohol has been banned for a while, but eventually it was decided as a society that we were willing to accept that risk and negative outcome. We have countries in the modern world that have banned alcohol still. Its purely cultural, its not a foundational moral or economical trade-off. And the negatives of alcohol are pretty bad! > Bad food is also banned via food safety standards via the FDA Depends on the definition of bad: if you mean toxic, sure. If you mean food that degenerates health, definitely the opposite. Sugar for example, could simply be banned to a very positive result in public health. > Recently we have the example of marijuana being rethought as a society and now those bans are largely going away. Things can shift in either direction. This is the appealing point from the libertarian stance: you dont need to depend on the mood of the moment for the direction of policy to benefit you. Marijuana would have never been banned under a libertarian conception. And neither would cocaine and other drugs, provided the harm is done only tos elf, and not to other.

azinman2 9y ago

I'm guessing the probability for death is far higher, or rather, the public safety benefit greatly outweighs the tiny cost. We also have regulations on building safety and construction, or would you rather not force people to have the precaution of getting a structural engineer when building homes and buildings? Alcohol has been banned for a while, but eventually it was decided as a society that we were willing to accept that risk and negative outcome. Bad food is also banned via food safety standards via the FDA. I could keep going on... but ultimately everything comes down to a cost : benefit analysis that's done collectively as a society. Recently we have the example of marijuana being rethought as a society and now those bans are largely going away. Things can shift in either direction.

conanbatt 9y ago
> I'm guessing the probability for death is far higher, or rather, the public safety benefit greatly outweighs the tiny cost. The tiny cost? First, its a tremendous cost! Why allow any 2 types of cars with different safety features? If safety is paramount on a car, then we should only one model: the safest. Second, the probability of death varies wth many activities. For example, biking is very dangerous in SF. So are many outdoor activities like mountain climbing. Or diving. There is a case for the seatbelt because when people die in a car accident, there are externalities, but forcing the seatbelt to protect someone is a paternalistic idea. > We also have regulations on building safety and construction, or would you rather not force people to have the precaution of getting a structural engineer when building homes and buildings? In this case, this is the safety of others. Very different to the safety of yourself: the whole concept of libertarianism is self-posession,that who you are is only owned by yourself. It is surely acceptable to use the powers of the state to protect one from others. > Alcohol has been banned for a while, but eventually it was decided as a society that we were willing to accept that risk and negative outcome. We have countries in the modern world that have banned alcohol still. Its purely cultural, its not a foundational moral or economical trade-off. And the negatives of alcohol are pretty bad! > Bad food is also banned via food safety standards via the FDA Depends on the definition of bad: if you mean toxic, sure. If you mean food that degenerates health, definitely the opposite. Sugar for example, could simply be banned to a very positive result in public health. > Recently we have the example of marijuana being rethought as a society and now those bans are largely going away. Things can shift in either direction. This is the appealing point from the libertarian stance: you dont need to depend on the mood of the moment for the direction of policy to benefit you. Marijuana would have never been banned under a libertarian conception. And neither would cocaine and other drugs, provided the harm is done only tos elf, and not to other.