6 ms·

You don't need to be the government's property for the government to optimize laws in order to reduce loss of life and medical expenses (the latter is important

You don't need to be the government's property for the government to optimize laws in order to reduce loss of life and medical expenses (the latter is important because in practice if someone badly wounded shows up in the ER, they get treated and someone has to pay for it, and that might not be the injured person or an insurance company)

WalterBright 5y ago
> You don't need to be Yeah, you do. It goes hand in hand with being the property of the government. For an example, the Soviet Union believed that if they funded your education, you owe the government a lifetime of service for it.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Sure, in Soviet Russia they go hand in hand. But Soviet Russia is perhaps not the model to limit oneself to? A government that does altruistic things for the benefit of the citizenry is good, actually.
  - brimble 5y ago
    I know the post you're responding to probably got a, "wait, that doesn't follow at all..." out of a bunch of folks, but I'd recommend letting it be to speak for itself—most everyone else can see the same thing you do. You're not going anywhere useful by engaging.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Doing altruistic things is one thing, going a step further and concluding that this entitles you to control the other is quite another.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      I agree. But no one except you is suggesting that it does! No one except you has said anything about anyone being the governments property. You've invented a line of argument to be concerned about. As another user said, your line of reasoning doesn't at all follow. I've tried to point that out twice now and I guess you don't want to acknowledge that.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        > No one except you has said anything about anyone being the governments property Read again the post I replied to.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        > You don't need to be the government's property for the government to optimize Right, so like I said. I mean you even quoted this part and then proceeded to not explain why perhaps you believe this is inevitable, but simply restate it. You're assuming you're correct but not justifying it. Or perhaps you mean the prior comment where someone said "People dying in auto accidents costs the government money in lost economic activity as well as things like medical care." which you took umbrage with. But there's again, nothing that implies property here. I don't think that the businesses on my street are my property, but I can still support policies that benefit them, because a robust local economy still benefits me. Nor do I think I hold any sort of right of ownership over an average schoolchild, and yet I benefit from a well educated citizenry and so support robust public education. Direct property ownership is not the only method by which people can benefit from things, and regulation is not necessarily done out of a sense of "entitlement". Some regulations are actually just good and improve the world.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        > But there's again, nothing that implies property here. Yes, there is. You're implying you're entitled to the work those people might do, and so you get to control their behavior. This is ownership.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        So just to clarify here, does my boss or employer own me? Because he both is generally entitled to the work I do, and as such can control my behavior? But more generally, I don't agree that exerting some amount of influence over behavior that affects me is ownership, as long as it is limited to the behavior that affects me. And as that user mentioned, there are costs society bears beyond the potential lost productivity (healthcare/rehabilitation costs as an example) so you can completely ignore this line of reasoning and their point still stands.
bombcar 5y ago
Paradoxically it may be worthwhile for the government to forbid helmets in that case, because morgues cost less than hospitals.
- more_corn 5y ago
  Also, helmet laws reduce organs available for transplant. Instead of requiring helmets we should default all motorcycle riders in as organ donors. In fact I’d be in favor of changing the law to opt out rather than opt in.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Heh a law saying “no helmet = organ donor” would be fine by me.

WalterBright 5y ago

> You don't need to be Yeah, you do. It goes hand in hand with being the property of the government. For an example, the Soviet Union believed that if they funded your education, you owe the government a lifetime of service for it.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Sure, in Soviet Russia they go hand in hand. But Soviet Russia is perhaps not the model to limit oneself to? A government that does altruistic things for the benefit of the citizenry is good, actually.
- brimble 5y ago
  I know the post you're responding to probably got a, "wait, that doesn't follow at all..." out of a bunch of folks, but I'd recommend letting it be to speak for itself—most everyone else can see the same thing you do. You're not going anywhere useful by engaging.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Doing altruistic things is one thing, going a step further and concluding that this entitles you to control the other is quite another.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    I agree. But no one except you is suggesting that it does! No one except you has said anything about anyone being the governments property. You've invented a line of argument to be concerned about. As another user said, your line of reasoning doesn't at all follow. I've tried to point that out twice now and I guess you don't want to acknowledge that.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > No one except you has said anything about anyone being the governments property Read again the post I replied to.
      - joshuamorton 5y ago
        > You don't need to be the government's property for the government to optimize Right, so like I said. I mean you even quoted this part and then proceeded to not explain why perhaps you believe this is inevitable, but simply restate it. You're assuming you're correct but not justifying it. Or perhaps you mean the prior comment where someone said "People dying in auto accidents costs the government money in lost economic activity as well as things like medical care." which you took umbrage with. But there's again, nothing that implies property here. I don't think that the businesses on my street are my property, but I can still support policies that benefit them, because a robust local economy still benefits me. Nor do I think I hold any sort of right of ownership over an average schoolchild, and yet I benefit from a well educated citizenry and so support robust public education. Direct property ownership is not the only method by which people can benefit from things, and regulation is not necessarily done out of a sense of "entitlement". Some regulations are actually just good and improve the world.
        WalterBright 5y ago
        > But there's again, nothing that implies property here. Yes, there is. You're implying you're entitled to the work those people might do, and so you get to control their behavior. This is ownership.
        joshuamorton 5y ago
        So just to clarify here, does my boss or employer own me? Because he both is generally entitled to the work I do, and as such can control my behavior? But more generally, I don't agree that exerting some amount of influence over behavior that affects me is ownership, as long as it is limited to the behavior that affects me. And as that user mentioned, there are costs society bears beyond the potential lost productivity (healthcare/rehabilitation costs as an example) so you can completely ignore this line of reasoning and their point still stands.

bombcar 5y ago

Paradoxically it may be worthwhile for the government to forbid helmets in that case, because morgues cost less than hospitals.

more_corn 5y ago
Also, helmet laws reduce organs available for transplant. Instead of requiring helmets we should default all motorcycle riders in as organ donors. In fact I’d be in favor of changing the law to opt out rather than opt in.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Heh a law saying “no helmet = organ donor” would be fine by me.