4 ms·

Seatbelts are also mandated in the vehicles they paid for with their own money.

_heimdall 4mo ago
Sure, are you assuming I'm not similarly opposed to that authority? If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself. The government shouldn't have any mandating what we can and can't do if the only victim in said crime would be the same person doing that thing.
- iAMkenough 4mo ago
  Are you assuming I don’t agree with you? I just stated a fact. People can interpret that fact however they’d like. When someone else crashes into you on the street your tax dollars paid for, you should be free to not agree with seatbelts.
  - _heimdall 4mo ago
    I don't follow, sorry. What does someone else crashing into me have to do with seat belts? We do require car insurance for just such an occasion as one driver harms another.
- teh64 4mo ago
  This is why the libertarian argument does not make sense to me. You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as well: 1. Your body as a projectile could harm others. 2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your friends and family. 3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require things like air ambulances etc... 4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or pedestrians and injuring and killing them. It is not a victimless crime.
  - toss1 4mo ago
    Add also the cost of healthcare when you do NOT die but are only severely injured. You cannot have any honest libertarian lifestyle à la carte. I'd be OK with libertarians opting out — but to be true they must opt out of EVERYTHING. You want to smoke, drink raw milk, and not take your vaccines? Fine, you can organize your own self-insured healthcare too. And you go to the back of the queue and not get treated when a participating member of society has a health issue. The problem is those "free" "do my own research" types feel no responsibility for maintaining the wellness of their neighbors or even themselves, but DO still show up at the emergency room and expect full medical treatment when the DO get sick/injured from raw milk, no vaccines, no seatbelts, or whatever. They are not libertarians, they are freeloaders, lying to themselves about libertarian "philosophy" to justify freeloading on the systems and herd immunity built and maintained by their smarter and more conscientious peers.
    - _heimdall 4mo ago
      I said this in a sibling comment, but when do we begin regulating other personal choices in the name of shared health care costs? I see the problem there as being a society wholely dependent on a risk sharing insurance scheme, not any one particular factor that can raise rates. Edit: its also worth noting that health insurance, and all insurance in the US unless I'm mistaken, is something you choose to use. You don't have to have health insurance at all, meaning you are choosing to take on the risk that others' decisions impact your rates and decided that is worth the benefits you gain from the coverage.
      - czl 4mo ago
        > You don't have to have health insurance at all, There are (or were) tax time penalties for failing to have healthcare coverage. Possible USA laws have changed recently.
        _heimdall 4mo ago
        I'm not sure if those were ever enforced, but I could be wrong. More importantly though, I disagree strongly with that rule when they either tried to, or did, implement and enforce it with the ACA.
- Hizonner 4mo ago
  > If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself. Mostly, yes. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated and therefore spread a disease, you are harming others.
  - _heimdall 4mo ago
    That's a very deep rabbit hole to go down, to deep for this conversation. Suffice it to say that if a pathogen has a vaccine that is proven safe and effective there's a reasonable case to be made for requiring it. It gets very murky when we try to define "safe" and "effective" though.
cobbzilla 4mo ago
Now imagine junkies could get high off of seat belts.. then how do you regulate??
- iAMkenough 4mo ago
  7% seatbelt use tax, with a required seatbelt fastener technology that charges you every click
eptcyka 4mo ago
There are states that require cars to be crash tested with the dummies without seatbelts. This then encumbers auto designers to cater for that crash test. Some cars will never be homologated in the US because of this, loads of other cars could be more spacious and safer if it was not for this requirement. And it is just 3 states.

Sure, are you assuming I'm not similarly opposed to that authority? If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself. The government shouldn't have any mandating what we can and can't do if the only victim in said crime would be the same person doing that thing.

iAMkenough 4mo ago
Are you assuming I don’t agree with you? I just stated a fact. People can interpret that fact however they’d like. When someone else crashes into you on the street your tax dollars paid for, you should be free to not agree with seatbelts.
- _heimdall 4mo ago
  I don't follow, sorry. What does someone else crashing into me have to do with seat belts? We do require car insurance for just such an occasion as one driver harms another.
teh64 4mo ago
This is why the libertarian argument does not make sense to me. You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as well: 1. Your body as a projectile could harm others. 2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your friends and family. 3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require things like air ambulances etc... 4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or pedestrians and injuring and killing them. It is not a victimless crime.
- toss1 4mo ago
  Add also the cost of healthcare when you do NOT die but are only severely injured. You cannot have any honest libertarian lifestyle à la carte. I'd be OK with libertarians opting out — but to be true they must opt out of EVERYTHING. You want to smoke, drink raw milk, and not take your vaccines? Fine, you can organize your own self-insured healthcare too. And you go to the back of the queue and not get treated when a participating member of society has a health issue. The problem is those "free" "do my own research" types feel no responsibility for maintaining the wellness of their neighbors or even themselves, but DO still show up at the emergency room and expect full medical treatment when the DO get sick/injured from raw milk, no vaccines, no seatbelts, or whatever. They are not libertarians, they are freeloaders, lying to themselves about libertarian "philosophy" to justify freeloading on the systems and herd immunity built and maintained by their smarter and more conscientious peers.
  - _heimdall 4mo ago
    I said this in a sibling comment, but when do we begin regulating other personal choices in the name of shared health care costs? I see the problem there as being a society wholely dependent on a risk sharing insurance scheme, not any one particular factor that can raise rates. Edit: its also worth noting that health insurance, and all insurance in the US unless I'm mistaken, is something you choose to use. You don't have to have health insurance at all, meaning you are choosing to take on the risk that others' decisions impact your rates and decided that is worth the benefits you gain from the coverage.
    - czl 4mo ago
      > You don't have to have health insurance at all, There are (or were) tax time penalties for failing to have healthcare coverage. Possible USA laws have changed recently.
      - _heimdall 4mo ago
        I'm not sure if those were ever enforced, but I could be wrong. More importantly though, I disagree strongly with that rule when they either tried to, or did, implement and enforce it with the ACA.
Hizonner 4mo ago
> If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself. Mostly, yes. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated and therefore spread a disease, you are harming others.
- _heimdall 4mo ago
  That's a very deep rabbit hole to go down, to deep for this conversation. Suffice it to say that if a pathogen has a vaccine that is proven safe and effective there's a reasonable case to be made for requiring it. It gets very murky when we try to define "safe" and "effective" though.

cobbzilla 4mo ago

Now imagine junkies could get high off of seat belts.. then how do you regulate??

iAMkenough 4mo ago
7% seatbelt use tax, with a required seatbelt fastener technology that charges you every click

eptcyka 4mo ago

There are states that require cars to be crash tested with the dummies without seatbelts. This then encumbers auto designers to cater for that crash test. Some cars will never be homologated in the US because of this, loads of other cars could be more spacious and safer if it was not for this requirement. And it is just 3 states.