2 ms·

I'll try to help reframe it into a context were it is harder for you to disagree > the role of criminal law is to save innocent people e.g. Law abiding tax pa

I'll try to help reframe it into a context were it is harder for you to disagree > the role of criminal law is to save innocent people e.g. Law abiding tax payers, companies that hired the people who didn't want to use seat belts, their families and anyome else who would suffer if they were injured > from bad people in this case careless drivers who'd drive without a seatbelt. Not related to you but possibly mildly interesting and somewhat related to reckless driving and reckless behavior generally : Around here I guess we are the spoiled brats of the world, so when quarantine laws went into effect employees in permanent positions who were quarantined still get full pay. Then it turned out a number of people took advantage of even this, crossed the border into Sweden (who has a totally different approach, they still -last I heard - go for "herd immunity now" it seems) After all, food is cheaper on the Swedish side and then you get a paid holiday, right? So we recently changed the rules to make sure that wont work anymore ;-) Seriously: some people amaze me in how little personal benefit they have to have see to put everyone at risk.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
You are using a line of argument that would justify prohibiting meat, cheese, corn syrup, skydiving, mountain climbing, NASCAR, sailing, tobacco, alcohol, pizza, Coca Cola, desert foods and non-procreational sex. They all risk your life for a momentary personal benefit when someone else might prefer you not and then live longer. It's also essentially arguing that no one has a right to intentionally end their own life no matter how much they're suffering if their continued existence is beneficial to any third party. You don't owe the benefits of your continued existence to anybody else, so whether risking your life is bad is a determination you get to make for yourself. > So we recently changed the rules to make sure that wont work anymore Naturally. But there are two problems with that. First, it's not really analogous to seatbelt laws, because if you don't wear a seatbelt then you could die but if you get a virus and spread it to five other people who each spread it to five other people etc. then thousands of people could die. And second, those people are then in a different country which is making its choice in a different way. They may be wrong, but they're sovereign, and it's the people who live there and intentionally go there who suffer the consequences. What you should do is not let those people come back without being quarantined.
- eitland 7y ago
  We might not end up agreeing today but I'll admit you argue well. I'll note though: - In both cases one persons carelessness hurts others, only to a much stronger degree in the original version. - I agree, and it is obvious to me that one persons relatives or employer cannot have a say in everything and that some risky behaviors should be allowed as for example skydiving might actually be healthy. - I agree that maybe it shouldn't fall under criminal laws, I mean I see no reason why a person shouldn't get a visa or a gun permit because they were caught without a seatbelt, but I still want a way to make more people use it. (On a side note, I don't think seatbelt goes on permanent record around here.) I also guess people with tax paid health care might care more than people who have individual insurances pay for their health care. Regarding my other example: the rules are for Norwegians that leave the country to buy cheap meat or booze and then come back - fully aware that they should self quarantine. With the previous rules they would enjoy a complementary free holiday, paid for by their employers and taxpayers. That won't be tolerated anymore. As for the Swedes yes, I agree, they are free to do whatever they want and I think I was careful to not judge them, I'll wait with that until we see the end of this pandemic.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

You are using a line of argument that would justify prohibiting meat, cheese, corn syrup, skydiving, mountain climbing, NASCAR, sailing, tobacco, alcohol, pizza, Coca Cola, desert foods and non-procreational sex. They all risk your life for a momentary personal benefit when someone else might prefer you not and then live longer. It's also essentially arguing that no one has a right to intentionally end their own life no matter how much they're suffering if their continued existence is beneficial to any third party. You don't owe the benefits of your continued existence to anybody else, so whether risking your life is bad is a determination you get to make for yourself. > So we recently changed the rules to make sure that wont work anymore Naturally. But there are two problems with that. First, it's not really analogous to seatbelt laws, because if you don't wear a seatbelt then you could die but if you get a virus and spread it to five other people who each spread it to five other people etc. then thousands of people could die. And second, those people are then in a different country which is making its choice in a different way. They may be wrong, but they're sovereign, and it's the people who live there and intentionally go there who suffer the consequences. What you should do is not let those people come back without being quarantined.

eitland 7y ago
We might not end up agreeing today but I'll admit you argue well. I'll note though: - In both cases one persons carelessness hurts others, only to a much stronger degree in the original version. - I agree, and it is obvious to me that one persons relatives or employer cannot have a say in everything and that some risky behaviors should be allowed as for example skydiving might actually be healthy. - I agree that maybe it shouldn't fall under criminal laws, I mean I see no reason why a person shouldn't get a visa or a gun permit because they were caught without a seatbelt, but I still want a way to make more people use it. (On a side note, I don't think seatbelt goes on permanent record around here.) I also guess people with tax paid health care might care more than people who have individual insurances pay for their health care. Regarding my other example: the rules are for Norwegians that leave the country to buy cheap meat or booze and then come back - fully aware that they should self quarantine. With the previous rules they would enjoy a complementary free holiday, paid for by their employers and taxpayers. That won't be tolerated anymore. As for the Swedes yes, I agree, they are free to do whatever they want and I think I was careful to not judge them, I'll wait with that until we see the end of this pandemic.