3 ms·

Interesting opinion. I wish I could believe that on-line gambling would be legalized in the US, but when you see what has happened with seat-belt and helmet la

by Alex63 16y ago

Interesting opinion. I wish I could believe that on-line gambling would be legalized in the US, but when you see what has happened with seat-belt and helmet laws (neither of which has any contributory effect to the harm of others), you have to believe that there is an accepted viewpoint within the US body politic that the state should act to protect individuals from the consequences of their own actions (current interest in forced mortgage adjustments is another example). Couple that with a powerful industry lobby, and I don't have much hope of any change in the legal status of on-line gaming in the near future.

shasta 16y ago
> neither of which has any contributory effect to the harm of others Unless you count the insurance company or taxpayer that has to support the trauma victim
- mseebach 16y ago
  The insurance company can demand that you use helmets and seatbelt, and try to recoup their expenses from you if you don't. I'm not saying that's a perfect solution, but rationalizing limitations on freedom in terms of avoiding a public expense is a very slippery slope towards totalitarianism. In particular, privacy comes to mind. Respecting privacy denies law enforcement access to tools that might aid in the quick investigating of crimes. Why should your need for privacy be allowed to harm the taxpayer that has to support expensive investigations?
  - shasta 16y ago
    Well, the insurance company hopefully doesn't demand that you use a helmet but rather asks whether you want coverage that applies when you're not wearing a helmet, and it costs more. And freedom is a slippery slope to anarchy. Slippery slopes are best addressed with some reasonable theory that explains where the line is - where cost exceeds benefit. Ideally government would attempt to decide what our core values are - how we weigh privacy vs. freedom vs. equality vs. security vs. fairness - and then try to evaluate policies based on how they fare in these dimensions.
    - mseebach 16y ago
      > but rather asks whether you want coverage that applies when you're not wearing a helmet, and it costs more. That's the same. If they ask you, you can say no, in which case they'll demand you ride with a helmet, lest be uncovered. > with some reasonable theory that explains where the line is I'm arguing that the particular argument of "you can't do that, it might cost the taxpayers money" is over the line. I'm for stuff like consumer protection, standards in advertising, anti-trust and a slew of other statist, communist oppressing regiments. I'm not in favour of spending the polices resources on giving you a ticket if you decide to ride your bike along the beach on a beautiful summers evening and want to feel the wind in your hair.
      - Alex63 16y ago
        I think it's fair to question burdening taxpayers with the consequences of one's risk-taking behaviour, but I think there are ways to deal with that. For example, search-and-rescue efforts are often expensive, and taxpayers bear much of the cost. Some jurisdictions require backpackers and others who might end up needing those services to pay for permits, some of the cost of which goes to support search-and-rescue services. One can argue that that means careful backpackers end up picking up the tab for imprudent backpackers, but I think that's preferable to asking all taxpayers to pay the cost.
- Alex63 16y ago
  I don't count insurance companies. An insurance company makes a voluntary decision to be an indirect participant in a risk-taking activity. They can enforce helmet/seat-belt use as part of their policy if they wish, and deny coverage where appropriate. The taxpayer question is more complicated, since most people would probably agree that we can't allow an accident victim to bleed to death at the side of the road because they chose not to use their seat-belt. I'm fairly confident, however, that a solution could be devised without recourse to state interference in personal decisions.

by Alex63 16y ago

shasta 16y ago

> neither of which has any contributory effect to the harm of others Unless you count the insurance company or taxpayer that has to support the trauma victim

mseebach 16y ago
The insurance company can demand that you use helmets and seatbelt, and try to recoup their expenses from you if you don't. I'm not saying that's a perfect solution, but rationalizing limitations on freedom in terms of avoiding a public expense is a very slippery slope towards totalitarianism. In particular, privacy comes to mind. Respecting privacy denies law enforcement access to tools that might aid in the quick investigating of crimes. Why should your need for privacy be allowed to harm the taxpayer that has to support expensive investigations?
- shasta 16y ago
  Well, the insurance company hopefully doesn't demand that you use a helmet but rather asks whether you want coverage that applies when you're not wearing a helmet, and it costs more. And freedom is a slippery slope to anarchy. Slippery slopes are best addressed with some reasonable theory that explains where the line is - where cost exceeds benefit. Ideally government would attempt to decide what our core values are - how we weigh privacy vs. freedom vs. equality vs. security vs. fairness - and then try to evaluate policies based on how they fare in these dimensions.
  - mseebach 16y ago
    > but rather asks whether you want coverage that applies when you're not wearing a helmet, and it costs more. That's the same. If they ask you, you can say no, in which case they'll demand you ride with a helmet, lest be uncovered. > with some reasonable theory that explains where the line is I'm arguing that the particular argument of "you can't do that, it might cost the taxpayers money" is over the line. I'm for stuff like consumer protection, standards in advertising, anti-trust and a slew of other statist, communist oppressing regiments. I'm not in favour of spending the polices resources on giving you a ticket if you decide to ride your bike along the beach on a beautiful summers evening and want to feel the wind in your hair.
    - Alex63 16y ago
      I think it's fair to question burdening taxpayers with the consequences of one's risk-taking behaviour, but I think there are ways to deal with that. For example, search-and-rescue efforts are often expensive, and taxpayers bear much of the cost. Some jurisdictions require backpackers and others who might end up needing those services to pay for permits, some of the cost of which goes to support search-and-rescue services. One can argue that that means careful backpackers end up picking up the tab for imprudent backpackers, but I think that's preferable to asking all taxpayers to pay the cost.
Alex63 16y ago
I don't count insurance companies. An insurance company makes a voluntary decision to be an indirect participant in a risk-taking activity. They can enforce helmet/seat-belt use as part of their policy if they wish, and deny coverage where appropriate. The taxpayer question is more complicated, since most people would probably agree that we can't allow an accident victim to bleed to death at the side of the road because they chose not to use their seat-belt. I'm fairly confident, however, that a solution could be devised without recourse to state interference in personal decisions.