Seat Belt Laws

Lack of useing seatbelts usually have fatal consequenses, the other things very rarely have fatal consequenses.

You are mistaken. A high sodium diet often has fatal consequences. High blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, renal failure, stomach cancer, death. All of these things are linked to high sodium diets yet there is no law against it and rightfully so because each person gets to decide how they will treat their body.

It is very difficult to achive, only by longer period of time, you can die by this.

And since salt is an essential thing for humans, it's very difficult to outlaw, just because people are stupid and can't control teir intake, it shouldn't be outlawed entirely.

All arguments for seat belt legislation seem to center around whether or not wearing a seat belt reduces automobile injuries and fatalities. I think that is actually irrelevant to a certain degree. It wouldn't matter if seat belts reduce injuries and fatalities by 100%. It's still up to each individual to decide if they want to protect themselves. Otherwise, it's a slippery slope. If we are allowed to mandate our safety to each other then perhaps all risky activities will be outlawed. What's next? We can reduce high blood pressure by outlawing table salt? We can reduce skiing accidents by outlawing skiing?

Can someone explain to me what gives us the right to tell other adults they have to protect themselves?

Seat belt laws are a result of public safety and reducing their costs. If the health care system were mostly public rather than private in the U.S. it would be more obvious as to why seat belt laws are legislated common sense.

So you're saying that we should make laws to reduce health care costs? Does that mean you think that people that overeat should be committing a crime? What about people that don't cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze? How about people that don't wash their hands regularly in public? Do you know how much money that costs a year? I don't follow the logic that taking away a persons ability to make their own decisions is somehow a good thing if it'll save money in the long run.

So you're saying that we should make laws to reduce health care costs? Does that mean you think that people that overeat should be committing a crime? What about people that don't cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze? How about people that don't wash their hands regularly in public? Do you know how much money that costs a year? I don't follow the logic that taking away a persons ability to make their own decisions is somehow a good thing if it'll save money in the long run.

I'm sure if they could make gluttony illegal they would.

That's what worries me. Some day it will be technologically possible. The same reasoning that applies to seat belts, turning the state into a nanny, applies to a lot of other areas. I personally don't care about wearing a seat belt but I'd rather fight over something I don't care about before the same principle is applied to something I do care about. Let's outlaw everything with sharp edges too.

So you're saying that we should make laws to reduce health care costs? Does that mean you think that people that overeat should be committing a crime? What about people that don't cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze? How about people that don't wash their hands regularly in public? Do you know how much money that costs a year? I don't follow the logic that taking away a persons ability to make their own decisions is somehow a good thing if it'll save money in the long run.

I really wouldn't call not wearing a seat belt to be a crime committing act, much like parking in a no parking zone is not committing a crime or not having a properly registered vehicle. The are just public laws that are instituted to generate money if the ordinances are not adhered to.

All arguments for seat belt legislation seem to center around whether or not wearing a seat belt reduces automobile injuries and fatalities. I think that is actually irrelevant to a certain degree. It wouldn't matter if seat belts reduce injuries and fatalities by 100%. It's still up to each individual to decide if they want to protect themselves. Otherwise, it's a slippery slope. If we are allowed to mandate our safety to each other then perhaps all risky activities will be outlawed. What's next? We can reduce high blood pressure by outlawing table salt? We can reduce skiing accidents by outlawing skiing?

Can someone explain to me what gives us the right to tell other adults they have to protect themselves?

There's a difference between discouraging people and forcing people. To discourage people from ignoring their seatbelts, private organizations could put out PSAs. I see PSAs all the time discouraging me from smoking cigarettes. But cigarettes are still legal. The problem with making seatbelt use the law is that, by definition, you're forcing people to do it. The law is the arm of the government, and its main means of force. There's nothing wrong with discouraging people from doing or not doing certain things, but when the government forces you to act a certain way, and takes away your right to make deliberate, rational decisions... then the government has overstepped its boundaries and is acting on illegitimate authority.

Edit: Also, Slippery Slope is only a fallacy when the predicted chain of events is unlikely to occur or is highly improbable. The problem here is that (in the case of seatbelt laws) the government is legislating on the maxim "citizens should be lawfully obligated to exercise a concern for their personal safety." So logically, it's NOT a Slippery Slope fallacy to say that the government could just as easily regulate table-salt use and over-eating and all that, because were the government to do these things, it would be legislating based on the same underlying maxim.

I have to strongly disagree.

The most common exuse to do something unlawful/idiotic is: "the others are doing it too!" ..see?

Yes, and "perhaps all risky activities will be outlawed" is highly improbable.

A may lead to B, and B to C, and C to D, but there is no reason to assume that this will continue all the way to Z. Perhaps at D to E, people will say "enough is enough".