4 ms·

It doesn't only hurt themselves. They are tax paying citizens and the government has an interest in their welfare. They may have dependents. Now Timmy can't go

It doesn't only hurt themselves. They are tax paying citizens and the government has an interest in their welfare. They may have dependents. Now Timmy can't go to college because Dad blew their savings. They get a divorce, now mom and dad are depressed and Timmy enters a life of crime (or, less hyperbolic; doesn't make as much taxable revenue as he could have otherwise.) There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example.

leetcrew 8y ago
> There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example. and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power. although seatbelt laws are actually not a good example; they protect people outside your vehicle as well. I guess we just have different values. I don't want to be a revenue center for the state to optimize.
- ciupicri 8y ago
  How do seatbealts protect people outside the vehicle?
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    see int_9h's post. in the event of a crash, unrestrained passengers can hit other people in the car or go through the windshield.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power Well, that's certainly a valid viewpoint, but secondary (and primary) seat belt laws have saved a staggering number of lives. You're correct that it's perhaps not the best example as the driver and occupants can turn into projectiles and harm others, but the vast majority of deaths and injuries come to those not wearing a seat belt[1]. >I don't want to be a revenue center for the state to optimize It's not about being a 'profit center' for a host of corrupt politicians. We can debate what tax money should be spent on, or the rate at which they are levied, but I imagine we would both agree that taxes themselves are necessary for the maintenance of a healthy society. Your life is better when those around you are healthy and productive. None of us exist in a vacuum. [1]: https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf
int_19h 8y ago
Seatbelt laws aren't just about protecting yourself. Someone who is not wearing a seatbelt is a threat to others in a crash. For example, a person on the rear seat can actually kill the person in the front seat by blunt skull trauma (hitting the skull from behind with their forehead). And people in the front seats can become projectiles, going through the windshield and hitting people outside. As far as the general notion that government has an overriding interest in people's welfare - that same logic would trivially justify abortion bans, forced marriage and labor, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >that same logic would trivially justify abortion bans, forced marriage and labor, and all kinds of other nasty stuff. Only if you left no room for nuance and see every issue as completely black and white. Life doesn't work that way. It's ridiculous to compare seat belt laws (which we already have!) to forced marriage and labor (which we do not.)

leetcrew 8y ago

> There are all sorts of laws which protect people from themselves, this is nothing new. See; seatbelt laws for an obvious and simple example. and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power. although seatbelt laws are actually not a good example; they protect people outside your vehicle as well. I guess we just have different values. I don't want to be a revenue center for the state to optimize.

ciupicri 8y ago
How do seatbealts protect people outside the vehicle?
- leetcrew 8y ago
  see int_9h's post. in the event of a crash, unrestrained passengers can hit other people in the car or go through the windshield.
EpicEng 8y ago
>and they are all a grotesque overextension of state power Well, that's certainly a valid viewpoint, but secondary (and primary) seat belt laws have saved a staggering number of lives. You're correct that it's perhaps not the best example as the driver and occupants can turn into projectiles and harm others, but the vast majority of deaths and injuries come to those not wearing a seat belt[1]. >I don't want to be a revenue center for the state to optimize It's not about being a 'profit center' for a host of corrupt politicians. We can debate what tax money should be spent on, or the rate at which they are levied, but I imagine we would both agree that taxes themselves are necessary for the maintenance of a healthy society. Your life is better when those around you are healthy and productive. None of us exist in a vacuum. [1]: https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/~leinav/pubs/RESTAT2003.pdf

int_19h 8y ago

Seatbelt laws aren't just about protecting yourself. Someone who is not wearing a seatbelt is a threat to others in a crash. For example, a person on the rear seat can actually kill the person in the front seat by blunt skull trauma (hitting the skull from behind with their forehead). And people in the front seats can become projectiles, going through the windshield and hitting people outside. As far as the general notion that government has an overriding interest in people's welfare - that same logic would trivially justify abortion bans, forced marriage and labor, and all kinds of other nasty stuff.

EpicEng 8y ago
>that same logic would trivially justify abortion bans, forced marriage and labor, and all kinds of other nasty stuff. Only if you left no room for nuance and see every issue as completely black and white. Life doesn't work that way. It's ridiculous to compare seat belt laws (which we already have!) to forced marriage and labor (which we do not.)