4 ms·

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 helm

by 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.

by shasta 16y ago

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.