Responsibility and the law

[ImprobableJoe]

Whoa joe, that seems a bit harsh. You have to agree that the sometimes crazy amounts of money that can get awarded in some cases is a little screwy.

Yeah, and sometimes doctors screw up but we don't reject the entire concept of medicine. Especially based on cases where the doctor DIDN'T screw up!

Pet peeve of mine, that specific court case... when a woman requires skin grafts IN HER GROIN for her burns, she deserves all the money she can get. She does NOT deserve to be mocked by every ignorant Internet teenager who is looking for an excuse not to follow the rules, or political nitwit looking to maximize profits while minimizing consumer protection. It isn't fucking right.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Yeah, and sometimes doctors screw up but we don't reject the entire concept of medicine. Especially based on cases where the doctor DIDN'T screw up!

Pet peeve of mine, that specific court case... when a woman requires skin grafts IN HER GROIN for her burns, she deserves all the money she can get. She does NOT deserve to be mocked by every ignorant Internet teenager who is looking for an excuse not to follow the rules, or political nitwit looking to maximize profits while minimizing consumer protection. It isn't fucking right.

Yeah, Actually I removed that bit you quoted after I read what you were really saying... I quite agree. I was just reacting to a quick viewing of what you were saying, not the actual content.

And the truth is she got less than 600,000 in that case, not the crazy millions that everyone always thinks. And all she asked for was 20,000 to cover her medical costs when the case started, but mcdonald's would not settle.

 

[Aught3]

It's still hard to figure out were the personal responsibility comes in. Do you think that the doctors aren't showing enough personal responsibility after they got your diagnosis wrong? Or are you saying that you, yourself, need to take responsibility for your own health and should not be able to have recompense against the doctors if they badly screw up? It seems to me that either interpretation is the wrong way to look at the situation.

The doctors didn't screw up that badly, Bell's palsy fits most of the symptoms you describe, except body numbness - I'm guessing this was pretty much left out due to the more obvious facial paralysis. But doctors see a large number of patients everyday and they are going to get things wrong, there are, and do need to be, rules that enforce the responsibility of the calls that they make with diagnoses.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Are we using the law to place far less emphasis on personal responsibility?

In some cases, yes. Some of the members in our society have come to the conclusion that the people in this country are incapable of acting responsibly when it comes to their own welfare, and therefore must be forced to do so by law.

I could argue that seat belt laws are superfluous because that would be another case of personal responsibility.

I detest most laws made for victimless crimes. I've always felt that if you're dumb enough to risk your own life by not wearing a seatbelt while in the car - well, that's one less fool in the gene pool if you get in a wreck.

 

[Ozymandyus]

In some cases, yes. Some of the members in our society have come to the conclusion that the people in this country are incapable of acting responsibly when it comes to their own welfare, and therefore must be forced to do so by law.

I detest most laws made for victimless crimes. I've always felt that if you're dumb enough to risk your own life by not wearing a seatbelt while in the car - well, that's one less fool in the gene pool if you get in a wreck.

I guess I'm just one of those people that think humans are mostly incapable of acting responsibly in regards to our own welfare. As someone who drinks, eats fast food, and probably wouldn't wear a seatbelt despite knowing that all of those things are for my own good - I happen to be a member of both groups. It is just too easy to put off the benefits of long term happiness and safety. If this is not a fact in pretty much every human's life, I'll eat my shorts.

I'm glad that my wife and the fear of getting a ticket help me to wear my seatbelt. I'm glad my wife makes me eat healthier than I otherwise would. I do the same for her. Sometimes we are just short-sighted and uncaring when it comes to these things for ourselves. Would I rather a little extra threat of punishment now than to be paralyzed or dead in a car accident? Yes. Besides which, is there such a thing as a victimless crime? If I'm an idiot and don't wear my seatbelt, does no one else suffer? How about my family, my wife, my coworkers, my students? There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Though I suppose you shouldn't listen to me because, as someone who probably wouldn't wear a seatbelt, I should be removed from the gene pool.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

I guess I'm just one of those people that think humans are mostly incapable of acting responsibly in regards to our own welfare. As someone who drinks, eats fast food, and probably wouldn't wear a seatbelt despite knowing that all of those things are for my own good - I happen to be a member of both groups.

Drinking and eating fast food isn't going to be the difference between life or death in a sudden accident, but a seat belt can. It's just common sense to wear one.

I'm glad that my wife and the fear of getting a ticket help me to wear my seatbelt.

Would you end up wearing it for the sake of your wife if the seat belt laws were not in place?

Would I rather a little extra threat of punishment now than to be paralyzed or dead in a car accident? Yes. Besides which, is there such a thing as a victimless crime? If I'm an idiot and don't wear my seatbelt, does no one else suffer? How about my family, my wife, my coworkers, my students? There is no such thing as a victimless crime.

Well, yeah, if you stretch the definition of 'victim', and ignore the fact that not wearing a seat belt is not directly harmful in itself, then you could probably argue that. You aren't risking harm to anyone but yourself if you don't wear a seat belt, therefore, it is victimless.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Drinking and eating fast food isn't going to be the difference between life or death in a sudden accident, but a seat belt can. It's just common sense to wear one.

That sense is not as common as you think. There is clear evidence that seatbelt ticketing campaigns increase seatbelt use. Even among educated and productive people, not just the people that you apparently think should be removed from the gene pool for being stupid. It is not 'common sense' at all - it is something that is programmed into us our whole lives, and laws are part of that programming.

People that didn't have parents yell at them every time they didn't buckle up don't buckle up as often, that's just a fact. Should we not care as much when they die simply because their parents sucked?

Would you end up wearing it for the sake of your wife if the seat belt laws were not in place?

Maybe. But not everyone is as lucky as me to have someone that nags them every time they do something stupid... does that mean we shouldn't care as much about them?

Well, yeah, if you stretch the definition of 'victim', and ignore the fact that not wearing a seat belt is not directly harmful in itself, then you could probably argue that. You aren't risking harm to anyone but yourself if you don't wear a seat belt, therefore, it is victimless.

Sure you are: you are risking harm to your family, who may need you as a provider, and your friends. You are risking harm to the insurance companies who will have to pay your medical bills, and to the other people that will get charged slightly higher insurance premiums because of your risk taking. You are risking serious harm to anyone that is dependent on you and in society we are all interdependent.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

People that didn't have parents yell at them every time they didn't buckle up don't buckle up as often, that's just a fact. Should we not care as much when they die simply because their parents sucked?

This is probably the only exception to my conviction, and only by a little bit. We are taught when we learn to drive that wearing a seat belt is necessary and can mean the difference between life and death in some accidents. At least, this was the case in my driver's ed. However, if the unimportance of a seat belt is ingrained into you by the negligence of your parents, you're more likely to not see the seat belt as a vital thing.

I have little sympathy for those who know that wearing a seat belt can save you and choose not to regardless of that knowledge. Regardless of your upbringing, at a certain point everyone learns that wearing a seat belt is important. What you choose to do with that knowledge afterwords is up to you.

But not everyone is as lucky as me to have someone that nags them every time they do something stupid... does that mean we shouldn't care as much about them?

Whether or not you care about someone who takes their life into their own hands during reckless actions is up to you. If you want to do something stupid, then fine, go ahead. It's your life and your health, I'm not going to stop you. Just don't expect me to care when you get hurt as a result of it. That's my view on it.

Sure you are: you are risking harm to your family, who may need you as a provider, and your friends. You are risking harm to the insurance companies who will have to pay your medical bills, and to the other people that will get charged slightly higher insurance premiums because of your risk taking. You are risking serious harm to anyone that is dependent on you and in society we are all interdependent.

Yet the actual act of not wearing a seat belt harms no one. It is only harmful coupled with an accident.


But since we're all interdependent and people need a nanny to hold their hand and tell them what to do, maybe we should petition the government to ban junk foods, alcohol, cigarettes, and various other luxuries because we wouldn't want to burden the rest of society with diabetic fatties, alcoholics, people with lung cancer, and any other people who have problems because of their own lack of regard for their health.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Yet the actual act of not wearing a seat belt harms no one. It is only harmful coupled with an accident.

This is exactly the problematic root of all arguments of this sort. If you divorce things from their LIKELY consequences, you can never hold anyone responsible for anything until they have ALREADY injured someone. There is no ability to prevent activities that increase the likelihood of harm and damage which is the point of many laws.

The harm caused to the environment by various industries harms no one - until it does. Do we have to wait until the damage to the ozone is personally affecting me before we can levy fines against them?
The act of carrying a gun around in public harms no one. Unless thinks you are threatening them and shoots you.
The act of shooting a gun into a crowd harms no one. It is only harmful if you hit someone.
The act of taking money from a contractor harms no one. It is only harmful if someone else wants to do the job and then can't get it because some other guy is in tight with the governor.
Blah blah etc. You can do this with almost every violation of any law.

Am I claiming that we should ban everything that can cause harm? No not at all. But I do think we should levy fines and taxes against people that take disproportionate risks. This is what we do with alcohol and cigarettes, and seatbelts. We don't somehow ban people's abilities to drive their cars unless their seatbelt is plugged in. You are making a huge jump from the idea of taxing and fining behaviour that is bad for society and banning it completely.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

You are making a huge jump from the idea of taxing and fining behaviour that is bad for society and banning it completely.

Yet that is what is being done. Particular kinds of cigarettes are going to be banned in some states because we can't trust kids not to smoke them. Drugs, guns, prostitution, certain types of pornography - all have been completely or partially banned in certain areas because someone sees them as bad for society.


I know I'm being an idealist by expecting my fellow humans to show some iota of personal responsibility. My point is that no one else but yourself even has the potential to be directly harmed by not wearing a seat belt. Just as it is not a crime to drink until you cause liver failure or smoke until your lungs turn black, it should not be a crime to not wear your seat belt. These should be issues of personal responsibility that each citizen should handle themselves.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is exactly the problematic root of all arguments of this sort. If you divorce things from their LIKELY consequences, you can never hold anyone responsible for anything until they have ALREADY injured someone. There is no ability to prevent activities that increase the likelihood of harm and damage which is the point of many laws.

It isn't really an argument at all. It is part rationalization, and part delusion. Rationalization specifically for an immature rejection of rules and laws, for no good reason. Delusion, that likely negative outcomes only happen to other people, "bad" people who deserve for those things to happen to them.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

The harm caused to the environment by various industries harms no one - until it does. Do we have to wait until the damage to the ozone is personally affecting me before we can levy fines against them?
The act of carrying a gun around in public harms no one. Unless thinks you are threatening them and shoots you.
The act of shooting a gun into a crowd harms no one. It is only harmful if you hit someone.
The act of taking money from a contractor harms no one. It is only harmful if someone else wants to do the job and then can't get it because some other guy is in tight with the governor.
.

The difference being that those who may be harmed in these crimes are not the ones committing the act. I do not see why indirect financial or emotional harm should be taken into consideration for one act, and not another. If the emotional trauma caused by losing a loved one in a wreck because they didn't use a seat belt is adequate justification for seat belt laws, then why is it not acceptable to apply the same consideration to other acts that can cause emotional or financial damage to the loved ones of someone who dies from doing these things?

Would we show the same consideration to professional dare devils? People who sky dive or bungee jump for recreational purposes? Where does the punishment for risking one's well being stop?

 

[Ozymandyus]

The difference being that those who may be harmed in these crimes are not the ones committing the act. I do not see why indirect financial or emotional harm should be taken into consideration for one act, and not another. If the emotional trauma caused by losing a loved one in a wreck because they didn't use a seat belt is adequate justification for seat belt laws, then why is it not acceptable to apply the same consideration to other acts that can cause emotional or financial damage to the loved ones of someone who dies from doing these things?

Would we show the same consideration to professional dare devils? People who sky dive or bungee jump for recreational purposes? Where does the punishment for risking one's well being stop?

Again, you just don't get it. We DO apply that consideration to all such acts. It's not about punishment, its about prevention. And it's funny that you would call it punishment, considering you suggested the appropriate punishment for someone who is stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt is DEATH.

We force people to get permits and pay taxes and get insurance for all these activities you named. We make them sign waivers that detail all the bad things that can happen to them. We make them take lessons so they do it as safely as possible. That is all I'm saying needs to be done. That is all a seatbelt law is about. And when you don't wear a seatbelt, which a hell of lot of people still choose not to do, you occasionally pay fines. It makes a few more people wear seatbelts, saves a few lives, and is all around good sense. Every one of those activities you mentioned is strictly regulated for safety, and the equipment has to be double checked and inspected and all kinds of stuff.

If you want to see what it's like when we don't do this stuff, go bungee jump in malyasia where its not as well regulated. Drive a pre-70's era car that has 40% more fatalities despite many fewer accidents. Just stop shitting on the safety and standard of living that we have worked hard to attain in this country.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If you want to see what it's like when we don't do this stuff, go bungee jump in malyasia where its not as well regulated. Drive a pre-70's era car that has 40% more fatalities despite many fewer accidents. Just stop shitting on the safety and standard of living that we have worked hard to attain in this country.

You know what this reminds me of? Homeopathic/"Alternative Medicine" woo merchants and aficionados. Like those folks, there is a willful ignorance of history and a rejection of the value of knowledge and expertise. There's a sort of longing for a "better" past that simply never actually existed, and a refusal to understand that the reason things are the way they are is because things are improved over what they used to be. In the case of the "alternative medicine" idiots, they are so spoiled by living in a world with modern medicine that they feel like they can spit on modern medicine, and get away with it because they have already reaped the benefits of medicine.

In the same way, people live in a safer, more stable and free world than ever. Some people ignore the fact that it is rules and regulations that make it so, and are so spoiled and immature that they want to throw away all of that in the name of a sort of "freedom" that is based in selfishness and ignorance.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Again, you just don't get it. We DO apply that consideration to all such acts. It's not about punishment, its about prevention.

In what cases do we apply those? The environment? No, because it's not the people who pollute who are not just harming themselves, their risking physical harm to others. Same thing with shooting off guns in a crowed. You have the potential to hurt someone else.

We force people to get permits and pay taxes and get insurance for all these activities you named. We make them sign waivers that detail all the bad things that can happen to them

But the aren't forced to pay penalty fees for putting their life at risk. Why not just leave it up to the insurance companies to reserve the right to reject a claim, or part of a claim, if the person wasn't wearing a seat belt at the time of a crash?

If you want to see what it's like when we don't do this stuff, go bungee jump in malyasia where its not as well regulated. Drive a pre-70's era car that has 40% more fatalities despite many fewer accidents. Just stop shitting on the safety and standard of living that we have worked hard to attain in this country.

Regulating a product meant for use by the masses is not the same as regulating what goes on inside of a person's car. We are talking about the individual, not manufacturers.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I was clearly referring to your examples: we have laws against bungee jumping from random places, or cliff diving, or whatever. You can't do dare devilry without getting a permit or getting insurance. Because when someone splatters themselves down the side of a cliff, we have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars getting police out there, investigating it, doing autopsy reports, burying them, replacing them in their jobs, taking care of their kids... etc etc. We are all dependent on each other. You can reject that if you want, but fuck you if you do. The laws are there to say very simply that you are not allowed to do such activities without paying the price that you are inevitably going to make us pay with your stupidity. You can't have it both ways.

If you would prefer, we can just all be taxed for the idiots that do not wear their seat belts. The insurance companies and government can just charge us all more for the increased cost. Or, going by your genius plan of them just denying insurance to people that have car accidents, we can watch their families go bankrupt paying for the fees related to their death. Wouldn't that be great! 'Sorry ma'am, I know your husband died... but he wasn't wearing his seatbelt so you're going to have to come up with that 50,000 in medical bills and 10,000 in car damage yourself.' What a great solution!

As far as regulating a product being different, there is no difference. You are taking away the rights of people who may want to drive unsafe cars if it is cheaper! Companies should be able to put out safe cars and unsafe cars and people can decide for themselves which they want to drive!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

As far as regulating a product being different, there is no difference. You are taking away the rights of people who may want to drive unsafe cars if it is cheaper! Companies should be able to put out safe cars and unsafe cars and people can decide for themselves which they want to drive!

You joke, but we have elected officials in America who are really that goddamned stupid, and not just Ron Paul!

 

[RestrictedAccess]

If you would prefer, we can just all be taxed for the idiots that do not wear their seat belts.

And pay for their stupidity? No thank you. I'd much rather allow them to take the risk, and let them deal with the consequences of it if they get in a wreck.

The insurance companies and government can just charge us all more for the increased cost. Or, going by your genius plan of them just denying insurance to people that have car accidents, we can watch their families go bankrupt paying for the fees related to their death. Wouldn't that be great! 'Sorry ma'am, I know your husband died... but he wasn't wearing his seatbelt so you're going to have to come up with that 50,000 in medical bills and 10,000 in car damage yourself.' What a great solution!

Makes for a great deterrent, though, doesn't it? That is what this is all about, right? Deterring the incident from happening? :roll:

They wouldn't have to decline the whole claim, simply part of it. I honestly don't care one way or another. It's not something I think that should be deterred in the first place.

As far as regulating a product being different, there is no difference. You are taking away the rights of people who may want to drive unsafe cars if it is cheaper! Companies should be able to put out safe cars and unsafe cars and people can decide for themselves which they want to drive!

Then those people will have to find their unsafe cars elsewhere, because manufacturers do not have the right to endanger their customers by providing unsafe wares.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Well then, I guess manufacturers should not make cars that can be driven without having your seatbelt buckled? Instead of just beeping at me, my car should shut itself off if I don't buckle my seatbelt within 30 seconds of starting my car? That is the solution you are proposing, and it's quite a bit more strict than mine. And does far more to actually remove responsibility from people - it puts all the power and responsibility of determining what is safe enough on corporations instead of on the people.

And yes, completely fucking your family over would be a great deterrent, if people were not so short sighted. Everyone simply thinks, 'oh that will never happen to me'. Laws are our way of saying: YES - THIS will happen to you.

And as I said, It's not them that deals with the consequences. It's their families, and coworkers, and children, and friends. They are fucking dead, and pay absolutely no consequences.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Well then, I guess manufacturers should not make cars that can be driven without having your seatbelt buckled? Instead of just beeping at me, my car should shut itself off if I don't buckle my seatbelt within 30 seconds of starting my car? That is the solution you are proposing, and it's quite a bit more strict than mine.

That's not a bad idea, actually.

And yes, completely fucking your family over would be a great deterrent, if people were not so short sighted. Everyone simply thinks, 'oh that will never happen to me'. Laws are our way of saying: YES - THIS will happen to you.

Which I simply don't agree with, in this case. It's silly to think that something like that can't happen to you, but the oversight is your own folly, and should be yours to deal with.

And as I said, It's not them that deals with the consequences. It's their families, and coworkers, and children, and friends. They are fucking dead, and pay absolutely no consequences.

If they don't survive. Not all people who get in wrecks while not wearing seat belts die.