8 ms·

There are to separate issues here, which became conflated: 1. regulations requiring manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars 2. laws requiring motorists to wear

There are to separate issues here, which became conflated: 1. regulations requiring manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars 2. laws requiring motorists to wear said seatbelts The former is not a violation of personal freedom, the latter is. But then for some insane reason corporations got the rights of individuals, and here we are inadvertently defending manufacturers vs. #1 when all we care about is #2.

MostlyStable 3y ago
So I agree that the two things are not the same, but also, there is a (much weaker) argument against #1 from a personal freedom perspective that has nothing to do with "companies are individuals". By forcing manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars, you are, in essence, forcing individuals to buy cars with seatbelts, regardless of whether or not they want them. Even if you didn't have #2, if you have #1, you are forcing someone who doesn't want to use a seatbelt to pay for a seatbelt. Like I said, admittedly a much weaker argument than that against forcing people to wear them, but there is a personal freedom argument against #1
- devmor 3y ago
  Nonsense, no one is being forced to buy a car, and you could remove the seatbelt if you wanted to remove it anyways.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    But then the nanny state safety inspections would fail your petty ass noncompliance car. Working seatbelts are a requirement at least in my state.
    - devmor 3y ago
      We are talking about a hypothetical situation in which that doesn’t exist.
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    Sure, but you still paid for it. And, modulo that you want to buy a car, yes, you are being forced to buy one with a seat belt. The kind of car you are allowed to buy is being limited. I already acknowledged its a much weaker impingement on personal freedom but there is a thing someone might want to buy (a car without seatbelts), and you aren't allowed to buy it. I think it's pretty clear, even if one doesn't think it's a big deal.
    - devmor 3y ago
      You can’t have this both ways - if personal freedom is violated by seatbelt laws then buying a car or not is also your personal freedom regardless if it comes with things you want or not. You don’t get to treat force as a transitive property when it suits you and isolated when it doesn’t - its one or the other.
      - MostlyStable 3y ago
        Absent government action, there is a thing I would be free to do: buy a car without seatbelts, with government action, this is a thing I can no longer do. I honestly do not understand the confusion here, or what "transitive force" you are talking about. You are free to think that this is minor, or doesn't matter, or is justified, or anything else, but to completely deny that it is _any_ level of impingement on personal freedom is just.....baffling.
        pengaru 3y ago
        > Absent government action, there is a thing I would be free to do: buy a car without seatbelts You are entirely free to buy cars without seatbelts. It's the manufacturers who are prevented from selling cars without seatbelts, nor headlights below a certain height, nor unsafe chinesium non-DOT-legal tires. Hell, aren't backup cameras required on new cars sold in the US now? And I'm pretty sure if a manufacturer sold you a car without seat belts, you could buy it, and it would be the manufacturers problem you could force them to correct at no cost. But you'd be breaking the law driving it around without wearing seat belts, which is the part of all this I take issue with.
IshKebab 3y ago
The "insane reason" being that we live in a society.

MostlyStable 3y ago

So I agree that the two things are not the same, but also, there is a (much weaker) argument against #1 from a personal freedom perspective that has nothing to do with "companies are individuals". By forcing manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars, you are, in essence, forcing individuals to buy cars with seatbelts, regardless of whether or not they want them. Even if you didn't have #2, if you have #1, you are forcing someone who doesn't want to use a seatbelt to pay for a seatbelt. Like I said, admittedly a much weaker argument than that against forcing people to wear them, but there is a personal freedom argument against #1

devmor 3y ago
Nonsense, no one is being forced to buy a car, and you could remove the seatbelt if you wanted to remove it anyways.
- jandrese 3y ago
  But then the nanny state safety inspections would fail your petty ass noncompliance car. Working seatbelts are a requirement at least in my state.
  - devmor 3y ago
    We are talking about a hypothetical situation in which that doesn’t exist.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  Sure, but you still paid for it. And, modulo that you want to buy a car, yes, you are being forced to buy one with a seat belt. The kind of car you are allowed to buy is being limited. I already acknowledged its a much weaker impingement on personal freedom but there is a thing someone might want to buy (a car without seatbelts), and you aren't allowed to buy it. I think it's pretty clear, even if one doesn't think it's a big deal.
  - devmor 3y ago
    You can’t have this both ways - if personal freedom is violated by seatbelt laws then buying a car or not is also your personal freedom regardless if it comes with things you want or not. You don’t get to treat force as a transitive property when it suits you and isolated when it doesn’t - its one or the other.
    - MostlyStable 3y ago
      Absent government action, there is a thing I would be free to do: buy a car without seatbelts, with government action, this is a thing I can no longer do. I honestly do not understand the confusion here, or what "transitive force" you are talking about. You are free to think that this is minor, or doesn't matter, or is justified, or anything else, but to completely deny that it is _any_ level of impingement on personal freedom is just.....baffling.
      - pengaru 3y ago
        > Absent government action, there is a thing I would be free to do: buy a car without seatbelts You are entirely free to buy cars without seatbelts. It's the manufacturers who are prevented from selling cars without seatbelts, nor headlights below a certain height, nor unsafe chinesium non-DOT-legal tires. Hell, aren't backup cameras required on new cars sold in the US now? And I'm pretty sure if a manufacturer sold you a car without seat belts, you could buy it, and it would be the manufacturers problem you could force them to correct at no cost. But you'd be breaking the law driving it around without wearing seat belts, which is the part of all this I take issue with.

IshKebab 3y ago

The "insane reason" being that we live in a society.