3 ms·
> Of course, governments have a responsibility to protect all Absolutely not. Government's job is to enforce laws and protect the national territory. But my
by fguerraz 3y ago
> Of course, governments have a responsibility to protect all
Absolutely not.
Government's job is to enforce laws and protect the national territory.
But my personal protection is my sole responsibility.
If someone endangers me by not respecting the highway code, the police needs to stop them, it's their job.
But do I agree to have the government mandate that I wear a safety belt? No. If I'm stupid enough to not wear it, I'm fine to not be entitled to claim damages in case of accident.
Of course you can make an argument that not wearing my safety belt has a cost to society (or not having that domain suppression list) and that therefore it should be banned. And I hear the argument. But in the end it comes down to what do you want the government's role to be: protect your freedom or protect you from your own stupidity?
The latter really scares me.
- flir 3y agoThat's a viewpoint that leads you to lab testing all your food before eating it.
- fguerraz 3y agoyou're missing the point. I'm happy to have laws that prevents causing harm to other people (the highway code for example, or for the food industry to have a responsibility to not poison their customers). But I'm not happy to have laws that stop me from growing my own food, without having to lab-test it, if I don't intend to sell it.
- flir 3y ago> my personal protection is my sole responsibility Honestly, that sounds a lot like caveat emptor me. I think we have to assume I didn't understand your intent.
- Kbelicius 3y ago> But my personal protection is my sole responsibility. Are you also against private property?
- fguerraz 3y agoI don't see the connection. But if I'm trying to interpret, no, I disagree with the right to shoot people just because they're trespassing.
- Kbelicius 3y ago> I don't see the connection. As you said: "But my personal protection is my sole responsibility.". If your personal protection is your sole responsibility then from that must(?) follow that the protection of anything that you own is solely your responsibility. > But if I'm trying to interpret, no, I disagree with the right to shoot people just because they're trespassing. That goes directly against your above claim.
- martin8412 3y agoIf you don't wear a seat belt, you're a risk to others. In the event of a collision, you can very easily become a meat missile capable of significant harm.
- fguerraz 3y agoYes, I agree. I think it's incredibly stupid not to wear a seat belt. I refuse to go in a car where not everybody is wearing it.
- johngladtj 3y agoWhat the actual risk there? Do you have any numbers? How many people will die or be injured per year as a result of the lack of seatbelt laws? Are there any other laws that can be implemented but aren't that would save similar amounts of lives, or more? Why don't you argue for those laws?
- qbrass 3y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3InF19dzlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3InF19dzlM