Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Sibirsky]

It's called sarcasm.

I know. That's what I was using.

At this point, according to you my straw man caricature, holding a gun to someone's head to make them do something, is not forcing them to do something. It's just a threat! It's not actual force.

Fixed that for you.

This isn't a straw man.

Seat belts should be mandatory and I don't care about the philosophy behind the counter-argument when people die without seat belts.

Using this argument, anything can be banned in the interest of safety.

Contract laws all stem from property rights. It's a very easy concept.

All life stems from nonliving sources, that does not make living things non-living.

cars stem from mining pumps that does not make a Ford Focus a mining pump.

Planets stem from stars, that does not make planets stars.

and of course your premise is also flawed, many consider contract law to stem from codes of honor.

In contracts, property is exchanged. The end. All contracts are about property rights.

[Sibirsky]

Contract laws all stem from property rights. It's a very easy concept.

Ugh. Forget it.

Contracts are agreements to exchange the use of property.

Oh wow.

[Haladrien]

They are annoying and lock up on me sometimes, making me breathe heavily and have a literal moment in the car, but they are safe.

[AiliailiA]

Ugh. Forget it.

Contracts are agreements to exchange the use of property.

Oh wow.

Ah, now you say the use of property, not just the ownership of property.

Well I like that. At least someone reads what I post

[Sibirsky]

Contracts are agreements to exchange the use of property.

Oh wow.

Ah, now you say the use of property, not just the ownership of property.

Well I like that. At least someone reads what I post

Well, we have intangible goods and services to consider. But yes.

[Hurdegaryp]

...but any idiot knows it's a good idea to wear one.

Of course there are always people who have tried to reach the level of the common idiot and failed miserably. Quite a few NationStates General thread starters fall in that category.

[Mavorpen]

This isn't a straw man.

Yes it is. You seem to be under the asinine belief that I have said that people who use threats cannot also use force. That is nonsense. The specific case you gave me indeed is an example of both a threat and force being used. But that is NOT because threats are inherently force. Force is the use of power or violence on a person or thing. If you hold a gun to someone's head and then threaten them to do something or else you will shoot them, that is both a threat and using force. You clearly have the power to perform said action and you are technically using violence. If, however, I were to threaten you right now by saying "send me $20,000 to X account" or else I will shoot you. Well, that's certainly a threat. But it isn't a use of force. I do not have the power to do this. I don't even own a gun. I am also not actually using any violence, whereas if I was physically holding a gun to your head, I would be.

So yes, your hypothetical was built upon a silly straw man.

Now, the state DOES use both threats and force. Then again, so do employers. As a matter of fact, so does anyone who holds a contract, especially when one needs the contract more than the other. An employer threatening to fire their employee is both a threat and the use of force, since they clearly are using their power to do so. Are you against the termination of employer - employee contracts?

[Sociobiology]

...but any idiot knows it's a good idea to wear one.

Of course there are always people who have tried to reach the level of the common idiot and failed miserably. Quite a few NationStates General thread starters fall in that category.

"If you make your system more idiot-proof, the idiots will build a bigger idiot" --anon

[Sociobiology]

Ugh. Forget it.

Contracts are agreements to exchange the use of property.

Oh wow.

or labor, or time, or obligation, honor, force, service, behavior, belief, speech, action, or information.
Now YOU might think all these count as property, but most people disagree with you.

oh, and that still does not make them part of property rights, unless you argue all social interaction is property rights, in which case you have defined it so broadly it becomes meaningless.

[Norstal]

:palm:

Yeah let's Remove seatbelts! Let's also remove them from Roller coasters! Let's get rid of all Safety Regulations! YEAH! I have a right to fly out of the car and cost everyone alot of money! Saying anything that derfends mandatory seatbelts is against George Washington and Ben Franklin!

(Is this what our world has come to!? )

regulations is raep

[Hurdegaryp]

:palm:

Yeah let's Remove seatbelts! Let's also remove them from Roller coasters! Let's get rid of all Safety Regulations! YEAH! I have a right to fly out of the car and cost everyone alot of money! Saying anything that derfends mandatory seatbelts is against George Washington and Ben Franklin!

(Is this what our world has come to!? )

regulations is raep

Quick, somebody contact the Tea Party! Clearly this is right up their alley.

[Atlanticatia]

This thread is the reason I cringe at 99% of libertarian 'Tea Partiers'. "That darned gubmint can't tell me to well a seat bilt!"

Just stop. The seatbelt law is there to protect people because without it, more people would die, and it creates a risk for more than just the driver. It burdens the health system, law enforcement, etc. What if someone hits your car, and you die because you think you need "freedom" to choose to wear a seatbelt? How would they feel?

The seat belt law is for everyone's own good.

[Sibirsky]

This thread is the reason I cringe at 99% of libertarian 'Tea Partiers'. "That darned gubmint can't tell me to well a seat bilt!"

Just stop. The seatbelt law is there to protect people because without it, more people would die, and it creates a risk for more than just the driver. It burdens the health system, law enforcement, etc. What if someone hits your car, and you die because you think you need "freedom" to choose to wear a seatbelt? How would they feel?

The seat belt law is for everyone's own good.

The Tea Party is not libertarian.

Safety is not the only factor in consideration.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This thread is the reason I cringe at 99% of libertarian 'Tea Partiers'. "That darned gubmint can't tell me to well a seat bilt!"

Just stop. The seatbelt law is there to protect people because without it, more people would die, and it creates a risk for more than just the driver. It burdens the health system, law enforcement, etc. What if someone hits your car, and you die because you think you need "freedom" to choose to wear a seatbelt? How would they feel?

The seat belt law is for everyone's own good.

The Tea Party is not libertarian.

Safety is not the only factor in consideration.

No it's not. But it's not like the other factors mount a strong case for not wearing seatbelts, is it?

[Sibirsky]

The Tea Party is not libertarian.

Safety is not the only factor in consideration.

No it's not. But it's not like the other factors mount a strong case for not wearing seatbelts, is it?

Didn't say they do.

[European Socialist Republic]

What's next? Ban traffic lights?

[Hurdegaryp]

What's next? Ban traffic lights?

Amazingly enough there have been experiments in several European cities that did exactly that as much as possible. The majority of all traffic signs were also removed. And guess what? The number of traffic accidents decreased dramatically. People start to drive more carefully when signs don't tell them what to do.

[Sibirsky]

What's next? Ban traffic lights?

Are you crazy? People would all instantly die!!!1111!!!

We need traffic lights every 10 feet. With cameras. For safety.

[Sibirsky]

What's next? Ban traffic lights?

Amazingly enough there have been experiments in several European cities that did exactly that as much as possible. The majority of all traffic signs were also removed. And guess what? The number of traffic accidents decreased dramatically. People start to drive more carefully when signs don't tell them what to do.

Damn ninjas.

http://www.minds.com/blog/view/24821546 ... n-existent

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/04/ ... calm/5152/

[Lamaredia]

I understand seatbelts keep people safe. And I understand it's pretty stupid NOT to wear it. But it's also the fact that we have the right of choice, and that's being taken away with them being mandatory. It's not protecting anyone else but me, which I don't feel is the government's place.

I was going to argue with you, but then I read your signature and realised that you are a lost cause.

[Lamaredia]

I understand seatbelts keep people safe. And I understand it's pretty stupid NOT to wear it. But it's also the fact that we have the right of choice, and that's being taken away with them being mandatory. It's not protecting anyone else but me, which I don't feel is the government's place.

I was going to argue with you, but then I read your signature and realised that you are a lost cause.

[Thafoo]

I understand seatbelts keep people safe. And I understand it's pretty stupid NOT to wear it. But it's also the fact that we have the right of choice, and that's being taken away with them being mandatory. It's not protecting anyone else but me, which I don't feel is the government's place.

I was going to argue with you, but then I read your signature and realised that you are a lost cause.

I understand seatbelts keep people safe. And I understand it's pretty stupid NOT to wear it. But it's also the fact that we have the right of choice, and that's being taken away with them being mandatory. It's not protecting anyone else but me, which I don't feel is the government's place.

I was going to argue with you, but then I read your signature and realised that you are a lost cause.

That's intriguing. Your signature disappeared in your double post.

[Lamaredia]

I was going to argue with you, but then I read your signature and realised that you are a lost cause.

I was going to argue with you, but then I read your signature and realised that you are a lost cause.

That's intriguing. Your signature disappeared in your double post.

That's strange. Maybe it unmarked the "Attach a signature" box in the doublepost?

[Thafoo]

That's intriguing. Your signature disappeared in your double post.

That's strange. Maybe it unmarked the "Attach a signature" box in the doublepost?

That's likely it.

[Lamaredia]

That's strange. Maybe it unmarked the "Attach a signature" box in the doublepost?

That's likely it.

Why don't you have a signature BTW?