• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Responsibility and the law

arg-fallbackName="Ozymandyus"/>
(Having cars that only start when seat belts are buckled) is not a bad idea, actually.
It is truly hilarious that you think that. Instead of people choosing to be responsible you are completely removing the possibility of responsibilty! 'It's not up to me to decide whether certain risks are worth taking. I would rather leave it up to the corporations to determine what I can and cannot do than risk maybe incurring a small fine from my government.' This is the EXACT antithesis of the idea of personal responsibility. Instead of making laws that people can choose to break if they want to be idiots, you want to make them physically unable to break them. Should we put chips in people's heads that prevent them from committing crimes too?

As for the oversight being your own folly that you should pay for, we are talking about accidents in which seatbelts make a difference. In low speed accidents, they make very little. In high speed accidents, its the difference between death/dismemberment/permanent brain injury and less permanent injuries- in which case you are not going to be paying anyone back, you are going to be a drain on society, chances are. It is your folley, but OTHER PEOPLE PAY. Your family spoon feeds you, or buries you, or pushes your wheelchair, or you get disability, whatever. A few people that do not get seriously injured and didn't wear their seatbelts will be properly punished, but you will be punishing all these other people that did nothing along with those people. How is that a better solution that punishing ONLY people that do not wear seatbelts?
 
arg-fallbackName="RestrictedAccess"/>
Ozymandyus said:
This is the EXACT antithesis of the idea of personal responsibility.


Not really, because realistically cars that don't start without seat belts being buckled would be unlikely to replace regular cars on the market. However, consumers will have the freedom to choose these cars if they really want to, for their own safety. The idea itself is very crude, and needs refinement, of course. We could have systems installed instead (at the customers whim of course), so that whoever may be driving the car won't be able to start it without a seat belt. I can see this possibly being a favorite among parents with teen drivers. Or, hell, we could have a system that constantly requests the driver to "Please buckle your seat belt," and doesn't shut up until you finally buckle your seat belt.

If the manufacturers want to market it, I see no problem with it. My biggest concern is the government forcing people to do things for their own good. I don't need to be told by the guys in congress what's good for me, and neither do you.


Ozymandyus said:
How is that a better solution that punishing ONLY people that do not wear seatbelts?

Stuff like that will happen with or without seat belt laws. Cops aren't always going to catch you without a seat belt, and some just don't care. Nor will the dire situations you describe be a norm. Does it save lives to wear seat belts? Of course. It would also save lives to require that you always have both hands on the steering wheel (an unenforced law in most places), never play your radio too loud, never eat or drink while driving, never hold a conversation while driving, never talk on your phone while driving, and never drive without a full nights sleep. I wonder why they aren't enforcing those life saving actions as well?


It comes down to this - you either leave it up to personal responsibility or you don't. I like personal responsibility. I like being able to make stupid decisions for myself without the government stepping in and saying, "No, stop it, don't you know that's bad for you?" We're going to end up agreeing to disagree on this matter because you're never going to change my mind, and I know I'm never going to change yours.
 
arg-fallbackName="Ozymandyus"/>
RestrictedAccess said:
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.
Do you not see how saying THIS, and then saying that it is up to people to decide whether they want to drive safe cars or not is completely self contradictory? You want to be able to hold manufacturers responsible for putting out unsafe cars, when all they are doing is allowing people to choose for themselves.
RestrictedAccess said:
Stuff like that will happen with or without seat belt laws. Cops aren't always going to catch you without a seat belt, and some just don't care. Nor will the dire situations you describe be a norm. Does it save lives to wear seat belts? Of course. It would also save lives to require that you always have both hands on the steering wheel (an unenforced law in most places), never play your radio too loud, never eat or drink while driving, never hold a conversation while driving, never talk on your phone while driving, and never drive without a full nights sleep. I wonder why they aren't enforcing those life saving actions as well?


It comes down to this - you either leave it up to personal responsibility or you don't. I like personal responsibility. I like being able to make stupid decisions for myself without the government stepping in and saying, "No, stop it, don't you know that's bad for you?" We're going to end up agreeing to disagree on this matter because you're never going to change my mind, and I know I'm never going to change yours.
So to elaborate: The difference is between a person that does not get caught when not wearing seatbelt and therefore doesn't get punished (happens all the time) or someone that is completely unrelated to the decision of not wearing a seatbelt (a child with an irresponsible father, or a person who gets taxed more because someone who didn't wear their seatbelt got denied their insurance and then went on disability for the rest of their miserable life). And you are saying that the second situation is preferable....

The final statement on this is: If you lived in magical place where your actions would never have any repercussions on me at all, I would not give a shit what you did. I would not care if you jumped your car over a crowded village of naked women with your seatbelt unbuckled your dick hanging out, talking on the phone while you spewed racial epithets. But such a place does not exist and only fools, egomaniacs and children think their actions have no meaning or effects on anyone but them.
 
arg-fallbackName="RestrictedAccess"/>
Ozymandyus said:
But such a place does not exist and only fools, egomaniacs and children think their actions have no meaning or effects on anyone but them.

I never said they didn't.
 
Back
Top