4 ms·

We could use this argument to remove warning labels from all dangerous things. If you want to drive your vehicle without a seatbelt, who am I to force you to?

We could use this argument to remove warning labels from all dangerous things. If you want to drive your vehicle without a seatbelt, who am I to force you to? Your seatbelt choices have no impact on anyone else except you, right?!

derekp7 13y ago
That is exactly right. Also, if I want to ride my bicycle without a helmet, or go rock climbing, or cross the street without being wrapped in bubble wrap, that is my business too. Although the seat-belt thing does have some legitimacy, in that it keeps the drive in front of the wheel during an accident, allowing him to potentially keep some control over the car.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  If you suffer a serious accident, it imposes an external cost on society. You may get presented with a bill afterwards, but even at the point of having the accident it's highly disruptive. Consider a car accident where you're berely inured and shaken up, v. one where you are ejected through the windscreen into the road. Which one is going to disrupt traffic for longer? keeps the drive in front of the wheel during an accident So you think passengers should not wear them?
Dylan16807 13y ago
People without seatbelts often end up in emergency rooms at public expense. People with bad investments won't often end up on welfare from their decisions.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Can you show this to be the case, or should I just take your word for it that bad investments don't have any negative impact on society?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I don't know of any studies on the subject, I'm just reasoning that if you have enough money to do actual long-term investment you must have some form of income, so if it falls through you still have income. It's not like gambling where you can addictively throw away every dollar you have in a day. If you 'invest away' all your money, you can uninvest it the next day. Also: It's not 'negative impact' as a binary check, but looking at the massive cost of medical bills. And seatbelts are enforced on public roads, not private land. Investment is fundamentally a private action, which should only be restricted in very serious circumstances.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      > It's not like gambling where you can addictively throw away every dollar you have in a day. It's not? > If you 'invest away' all your money, you can uninvest it the next day. Not if it's gone.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        Actual investment (to be distinguished from day-trading) is not an addictive action. There is no feedback loop. What crazy definition of investing are you using where you have any reasonable* chance of losing all your money in less than a day? Compare that to the near-100% chance of losing your money if you spend a single hour betting all of it at casino games. *let's say 1% or greater
        diminoten 13y ago
        I know for a fact that you do not have a near-100% chance of losing your money in a single hour at the casino, so the rest of your data, and your logic in general I find suspect. Your argument would hold some weight if you could provide some source or documentation for your assertions (that investment has no feedback loop and is therefore not addictive, or that the speed at which you lose your money on an investment is something that matters for the sake of this conversation).

derekp7 13y ago

That is exactly right. Also, if I want to ride my bicycle without a helmet, or go rock climbing, or cross the street without being wrapped in bubble wrap, that is my business too. Although the seat-belt thing does have some legitimacy, in that it keeps the drive in front of the wheel during an accident, allowing him to potentially keep some control over the car.

anigbrowl 13y ago
If you suffer a serious accident, it imposes an external cost on society. You may get presented with a bill afterwards, but even at the point of having the accident it's highly disruptive. Consider a car accident where you're berely inured and shaken up, v. one where you are ejected through the windscreen into the road. Which one is going to disrupt traffic for longer? keeps the drive in front of the wheel during an accident So you think passengers should not wear them?

Dylan16807 13y ago

People without seatbelts often end up in emergency rooms at public expense. People with bad investments won't often end up on welfare from their decisions.

diminoten 13y ago
Can you show this to be the case, or should I just take your word for it that bad investments don't have any negative impact on society?
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  I don't know of any studies on the subject, I'm just reasoning that if you have enough money to do actual long-term investment you must have some form of income, so if it falls through you still have income. It's not like gambling where you can addictively throw away every dollar you have in a day. If you 'invest away' all your money, you can uninvest it the next day. Also: It's not 'negative impact' as a binary check, but looking at the massive cost of medical bills. And seatbelts are enforced on public roads, not private land. Investment is fundamentally a private action, which should only be restricted in very serious circumstances.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    > It's not like gambling where you can addictively throw away every dollar you have in a day. It's not? > If you 'invest away' all your money, you can uninvest it the next day. Not if it's gone.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      Actual investment (to be distinguished from day-trading) is not an addictive action. There is no feedback loop. What crazy definition of investing are you using where you have any reasonable* chance of losing all your money in less than a day? Compare that to the near-100% chance of losing your money if you spend a single hour betting all of it at casino games. *let's say 1% or greater
      - diminoten 13y ago
        I know for a fact that you do not have a near-100% chance of losing your money in a single hour at the casino, so the rest of your data, and your logic in general I find suspect. Your argument would hold some weight if you could provide some source or documentation for your assertions (that investment has no feedback loop and is therefore not addictive, or that the speed at which you lose your money on an investment is something that matters for the sake of this conversation).