Assuming for a second I would support your idea of "responsibilities", the question is where to draw the line. If that line is drawn where you believe it is,

Assuming for a second I would support your idea of "responsibilities", the question is where to draw the line. If that line is drawn where you believe it is, any undue burden monetarily on society, then you would you agree you reject the concept of limited government and individual rights? If your position is taken to the logical conclusion, that because a person that is injured by not wearing a helmet posses an undue burden on society due to medical costs, there is literally no law or regulation that would be outside the bounds of government control. You are proposing a literal totalitarian regime. For me I draw that line at a very different spot, you point to the idea that not stealing someone else's property has a social responsibility. I agree that people should not steal other peoples property, and that government should enforce said property rights. Theft is a direct harm, one individual harming another individual. That is clear delineation where government can be an arbitrator. However the example here of a non-helmet wearer harming "society" at large is less direct, first not every person that does not where a helmet will get into an accident, then not every accident will result in medical care, then not every accident that results in medical care would go to the point to be an imposition on society. So now instead of a clear 1:1 direct harm you are now wanting government to use threat of violence (and to be clear all government laws are back by such a threat) to reduce a "harm" that is spread out over all of society, and is also a fraction of a fraction of percent probability that the burden will even present itself. To me that is unjustifiable and draconian, it does not rise to the level of requiring government intervention in the same way theft does. Each of us has a natural right to defend their person, their liberty, and their property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. Society then has the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. We call this Government. The principle of collective right its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual rights. As such the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for the same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. That is the foundation for which I look at government policy. So my question on this helmet issue is.. Can I as an individual impose my desire to another person to wear a helmet upon them forcibly? I can as an individual prevent them from stealing my property, but I do not believe I can forcibly make another person wear a helmet, since I can not do that as an individual, I do not believe the government should have that authority either.