Seat Belt Laws

Small fines are a discouragement. They tax cigarettes heavily which is very similar.


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".

If you stick with the hard-core interpretation, you would be against many many things that save lives. Government regulation of auto safety? Maybe the will force us to wear crash helmets when we go for a walk. Testing of new drugs by the FDA? Maybe that will lead to children having to get their lemonade recipe's approved before they can run a lemonade stand.

I think it's clear that the government should work to keep the people safe, and that they should not go too far. But denying one end of the scale is not helpful.

I can easily see them taking the protection thing too far, but if it isn't too far at seat belts, and the actual law that will be used as precedent is not too broad, then we should have the seat belt laws and argue against salt restrictions if that is something we do consider banning.

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.

No one ever says they are not going to wear their seat belt because every one else isn't, and no group of people care enough to base friendships based on wearing or not wearing seat belts.

My point: you need to be clearer to what you are strongly disagreeing with. I never said anything about excuses and I fail to see the connection between what you quoted and what you wrote.

I disagree with small fines on seatbelt wearing, as well as a tax on cigarettes. I think transparency is the answer instead--like the label on cigarettes that says they can kill you, basically. After that point, it's your own responsibility to make the wise choice. After one death, private organizations will undoubtedly start producing PSAs and seatbelt-awareness campaigns and the like, and so transparency about the risks of not wearing a seatbelt will have been accomplished. But government sticking its pudgy fingers into the mix isn't going to help anybody in the long run.

And again, as regards the Slippery Slope... Like you, I don't think the government is going to go "too far" (although some might say they've gone "too far" already). The reason I don't think it's a Slippery Slope fallacy, however, is because of the logical reasoning behind the legislation. Logically speaking(if indeed the government is acting on the maxims I stated earlier), it is highly probable--in fact, logically necessary--that the chain of events will occur.

Perhaps. The question is, what principle will stop it from continuing all the way to Z? If the difference between A and Z is only one of degree and not of principle then what makes you predict it would ever stop? I'm looking for some kind of principle that differentiates seat belt laws from healthy diet laws and government controlled breeding.

Fact is, cigarette taxes consistently drop the number of new teen smokers, and seat belt laws save the lives of people who don't want to die and whose families don't want to die. I hate, hate, hate the mentality that ignores common sense because of some vaguely defined abstract principle. This comes up all the time in philosophy.

Some people don't want to wear a seat belt. Why force them? What does common sense have to do with forcing people to do things against their will?

Some people don't want to wear a seat belt. Why force them? What does common sense have to do with forcing people to do things against their will?

If you were under my government, I mean "MY". I would exile you, or anyone else, that broke ANY law, to the antarctic peninsula.

And as for what Theaetetus said earlier about friendships and seatbelts. Any friend of mine that intentionally broke ANY law of the country we both dwell in - Would no longer be a friend of mine.

Thank you, night ripper, and have a splendid everything. But don't break the law, Please...

Thank you, night ripper, and have a splendid everything. But don't break the law, Please...

What's your reason for this extreme totalitarianism? It seems obviously unjust. You would probably be assassinated (and rightly so).

They also don't want to die.

I'm not talking about breaking laws. I'm talking about repealing them.

What about people that ride motorcycles? Are they suicidal? When will that be illegal as well?

As for the Antarctic exile scenario, Harsh, maybe? but a good deterrent once publicised.

Hi night ripper,

But I like wearing a seat belt. I'm with you on the repealing of taxes though...

Thank you, Keep well.

Mark...

The point is, people are allowed to hurt themselves if they are doing so in an informed manner. If a person knows the risks involved in having unprotected sex then it's their choice to do so anyways and possibly contract HIV.

I like wearing seat belts too. I just don't try to legislate my personal opinions.

This is just something we have to accept. The laws obviously aren't completely consistent. For God sakes, alcohol is legal (after age), but marijuana, in most states, still is not. And of course, it is widely known that comparatively alcohol is more harmful to the body (and to others).

No, it's unacceptable. If we don't like the laws we should change them. Saying "that's just the way it is" shouldn't even be a response. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

No, it's unacceptable. If we don't like the laws we should change them. Saying "that's just the way it is" shouldn't even be a response. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

No. This is a B-->C example. They are something like 16 times more likely to die? So it worth a discussion. But they have good reason to want to ride (insert list of reasons why people ride motorcycles). I would at worst want a short safety training course mandated. I don't think I would even go for mandatory helmets.

I do believe in strong limitations on this kind of paternalism, but I wouldn't do away with it.



Harsh, maybe? State sponsored cruel and unusual murder for someone who goes over the speed limit?

Because, I have long since given up the wishful thought that everyone in this world can be rational. Yes, much of what is in legislation is inconsistent. What would you have us do? If you're really passionate about it, start battling the law-enactors! I personally can't be bothered - we have to choose where we want to focus our energy in this life, and as Jack's father says, "You can't save everyone, son".

Ah, you seem to be asking for the point of this thread. Well, I just wanted to make sure there weren't any arguments I was missing. For example, maybe not wearing a seat belt is a safety risk for others and not just yourself. That would make it a reasonable law. I haven't seen any argument like that however.