Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Llamalandia]

Well if well being is the goal why not ban alcohol as well? I mean, how many drunk drivers die and/or are killed every year? How many people die from alcohol poisoning? I mean, seriously think about what's being said, basically people are arguing it's ok to force people to do one thing for their own good (ie wear a seatbelt) but at the same time not prohibit them from doing something (ie drinking) which would also be for their own good.

[Liberaxia]

We would, but you don't have an argument. You have a loose collection of assertions we spent several hours trying to pin down yesterday, without much success.

And I do apologize for calling you a moron, that was classless and silly of me. I don't need to bring in my own words to make you appear foolish, your own words do just fine for that.

Anyway, aside from "laws are bad mmkay", do you have an argument? As noted before, I'd happily engage on anything actually debatable.

You can't argue moral values. I have tried explaining that to you, several times. You think using force on peaceful people is perfectly acceptable. I don't. How many times do I have to repeat that, for you to understand it?

Your assertions, are worse. You have claimed that taxation, makes us better off, by funding things needed to run things. This is demonstratively false. Taxation reduces disposable income, making the taxpayer worse off. You also imply that without taxation, those things simply would not be funded. Again, false. If there is demand for something, it will be met.

It's not rocket science. You have failed to prove anything, except that seat belts reduce fatalities.

We can do a number of things to reduce fatalities. It does not mean we should do them.

In the short run, maybe, but they might be better off in the long run.

[Jocabia]

Well if well being is the goal why not ban alcohol as well? I mean, how many drunk drivers die and/or are killed every year? How many people die from alcohol poisoning? I mean, seriously think about what's being said, basically people are arguing it's ok to force people to do one thing for their own good (ie wear a seatbelt) but at the same time not prohibit them from doing something (ie drinking) which would also be for their own good.

Not just for their own good. It also has an impact on others. Again, people have yet to argue an upside to being permitted to not wear a seat belt. What are you being denied? Lap air?

[Geilinor]

Well if well being is the goal why not ban alcohol as well? I mean, how many drunk drivers die and/or are killed every year? How many people die from alcohol poisoning? I mean, seriously think about what's being said, basically people are arguing it's ok to force people to do one thing for their own good (ie wear a seatbelt) but at the same time not prohibit them from doing something (ie drinking) which would also be for their own good.

Moderate alcohol consumption doesn't endanger one's life. Red wine can actually lower the chance of a heart attack. Not wearing a seatbelt increases your chances of dying by a significant amount. History has seen Prohibition come and fail. Seatbelt laws work and I'm not aware of one that has failed. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/DriverSafety/Pages/SeatBelts.aspx Denying a person the right to drink safe amounts of alcohol is very different from denying a person the non-existent comfort of being without a seatbelt.

[Llamalandia]

Well if well being is the goal why not ban alcohol as well? I mean, how many drunk drivers die and/or are killed every year? How many people die from alcohol poisoning? I mean, seriously think about what's being said, basically people are arguing it's ok to force people to do one thing for their own good (ie wear a seatbelt) but at the same time not prohibit them from doing something (ie drinking) which would also be for their own good.

Not just for their own good. It also has an impact on others. Again, people have yet to argue an upside to being permitted to not wear a seat belt. What are you being denied? Lap air?

Ok well so do lots of things. I mean heck smokers sometimes start fires becausse fo their recklessness should we ban smoking now as well. I mean, how much damage to others is actually caused (that couldn't be recovered) to other people by people nnot wearing seatbelts every year? Victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes.

It's an argument for freedom. It's not that there is necessarily even any advantage to it, the issue is that youre being compelled to do something against you own will and that's generally considered to be inherently wrong. I mean could just as easily say you should wear a helmet everywhere, arguably you'd be safer but so what? (I'm assuming its a confortable hemet and hey if people riding bikes put up with wearing them why shouldn't everyone?)

[Geilinor]

Not just for their own good. It also has an impact on others. Again, people have yet to argue an upside to being permitted to not wear a seat belt. What are you being denied? Lap air?

Ok well so do lots of things. I mean heck smokers sometimes start fires becausse fo their recklessness should we ban smoking now as well. I mean, how much damage to others is actually caused (that couldn't be recovered) to other people by people nnot wearing seatbelts every year? Victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes.

It's an argument for freedom. It's not that there is necessarily even any advantage to it, the issue is that youre being compelled to do something against you own will and that's generally considered to be inherently wrong. I mean could just as easily say you should wear a helmet everywhere, arguably you'd be safer but so what? (I'm assuming its a confortable hemet and hey if people riding bikes put up with wearing them why shouldn't everyone?)

You're being compelled to do it for a good reason. Are speed limits inherently wrong because you can't go at the speed you want?

[Llamalandia]

Well if well being is the goal why not ban alcohol as well? I mean, how many drunk drivers die and/or are killed every year? How many people die from alcohol poisoning? I mean, seriously think about what's being said, basically people are arguing it's ok to force people to do one thing for their own good (ie wear a seatbelt) but at the same time not prohibit them from doing something (ie drinking) which would also be for their own good.

Moderate alcohol consumption doesn't endanger one's life. Red wine can actually lower the chance of a heart attack. Not wearing a seatbelt increases your chances of dying by a significant amount. History has seen Prohibition come and fail. Seatbelt laws work and I'm not aware of one that has failed. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/DriverSafety/Pages/SeatBelts.aspx Denying a person the right to drink safe amounts of alcohol is very different from denying a person the non-existent comfort of being without a seatbelt.

That's only true if youre actually in a wreck, I don't know about you but most the time I drive I'm not in a car accident so therefor whether I wore my seatbelt or not wouldn't have matter (though for the record I always do).

It's not a matter of comfort it's a matter from freedom vs tyranny. I mean, why not pass a law saying you have to lock your door every night. It would probably cut down slightly on robbery but so what? It's still wrong because it's forcing someone to do something against their own will.

Besides how many people who get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt are even doing it deliberately? How many people simply forgot to put it on? It seems like this is just another way to raise revenue for the govt.

[Jocabia]

Not just for their own good. It also has an impact on others. Again, people have yet to argue an upside to being permitted to not wear a seat belt. What are you being denied? Lap air?

Ok well so do lots of things. I mean heck smokers sometimes start fires becausse fo their recklessness should we ban smoking now as well. I mean, how much damage to others is actually caused (that couldn't be recovered) to other people by people nnot wearing seatbelts every year? Victimless crimes shouldn't be crimes.

It's an argument for freedom. It's not that there is necessarily even any advantage to it, the issue is that youre being compelled to do something against you own will and that's generally considered to be inherently wrong. I mean could just as easily say you should wear a helmet everywhere, arguably you'd be safer but so what? (I'm assuming its a confortable hemet and hey if people riding bikes put up with wearing them why shouldn't everyone?)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but starting a fire recklessly is illegal. Just drinking and driving is illegal. And just like not wearing a seat belt is illegal.
See how that works.

And not wearing a seat belt is not victimless, as has been pointed out repeatedly. Declaring it victimless doesn't make it so. And the argument for freedom only carries until you impact the rights of someone else. Once you do, then the rights get weighed. So if you want to make it legal to put other people in danger, you have to make an argument for what you're losing out on by it being illegal. So far, you and everyone else making your claim have not even tried.

[Geilinor]

Moderate alcohol consumption doesn't endanger one's life. Red wine can actually lower the chance of a heart attack. Not wearing a seatbelt increases your chances of dying by a significant amount. History has seen Prohibition come and fail. Seatbelt laws work and I'm not aware of one that has failed. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/DriverSafety/Pages/SeatBelts.aspx Denying a person the right to drink safe amounts of alcohol is very different from denying a person the non-existent comfort of being without a seatbelt.

That's only true if youre actually in a wreck, I don't know about you but most the time I drive I'm not in a car accident so therefor whether I wore my seatbelt or not wouldn't have matter (though for the record I always do).

It's not a matter of comfort it's a matter from freedom vs tyranny. I mean, why not pass a law saying you have to lock your door every night. It would probably cut down slightly on robbery but so what? It's still wrong because it's forcing someone to do something against their own will.

Besides how many people who get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt are even doing it deliberately? How many people simply forgot to put it on? It seems like this is just another way to raise revenue for the govt.

It doesn't matter if you're forgetting to wear your seatbelt or deliberately doing it. You still haven't done it, which can pose a danger to others.

[Alyakia]

Well if well being is the goal why not ban alcohol as well? I mean, how many drunk drivers die and/or are killed every year? How many people die from alcohol poisoning? I mean, seriously think about what's being said, basically people are arguing it's ok to force people to do one thing for their own good (ie wear a seatbelt) but at the same time not prohibit them from doing something (ie drinking) which would also be for their own good.

because

1) seatbelts laws can be enforced, banning alcohol can't
2) drinking is not always bad for you and in the cases it is there are a variety of laws and policies (from the state and from private entities) covering this area
3) seabelts ar

[Llamalandia]

That's only true if youre actually in a wreck, I don't know about you but most the time I drive I'm not in a car accident so therefor whether I wore my seatbelt or not wouldn't have matter (though for the record I always do).

It's not a matter of comfort it's a matter from freedom vs tyranny. I mean, why not pass a law saying you have to lock your door every night. It would probably cut down slightly on robbery but so what? It's still wrong because it's forcing someone to do something against their own will.

Besides how many people who get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt are even doing it deliberately? How many people simply forgot to put it on? It seems like this is just another way to raise revenue for the govt.

It doesn't matter if you're forgetting to wear your seatbelt or deliberately doing it. You still haven't done it, which can pose a danger to others.

Ok, but how much of a danger to others? I mean having a pool in your backyard is dangerous (and we have some bullshit about that too) but youre still allowed to have it. Hell having a pool that doesn't have a fence around it is dangerous to others as well, does that mean people should be required to have a fence around their pool?

Let me ask you this, how much of a danger to others is it? I mean unlicensed drivers are generally considered enough of a hazard that we legally require people to be licensed so they don't harm others. Does the harm caused to others by drivers not wearing seatbelts rise to a similiar level?

[Alyakia]

Moderate alcohol consumption doesn't endanger one's life. Red wine can actually lower the chance of a heart attack. Not wearing a seatbelt increases your chances of dying by a significant amount. History has seen Prohibition come and fail. Seatbelt laws work and I'm not aware of one that has failed. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/DriverSafety/Pages/SeatBelts.aspx Denying a person the right to drink safe amounts of alcohol is very different from denying a person the non-existent comfort of being without a seatbelt.

That's only true if youre actually in a wreck, I don't know about you but most the time I drive I'm not in a car accident so therefor whether I wore my seatbelt or not wouldn't have matter (though for the record I always do).

It's not a matter of comfort it's a matter from freedom vs tyranny. I mean, why not pass a law saying you have to lock your door every night. It would probably cut down slightly on robbery but so what? It's still wrong because it's forcing someone to do something against their own will.

Besides how many people who get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt are even doing it deliberately? How many people simply forgot to put it on? It seems like this is just another way to raise revenue for the govt.

if a private home owner or a government housing association wants to mandate their tenants lock their doors they probably could do that tbh.

there are plenty of things that involve 1) forcing people to do things against their will 2) forcing people not to do things they want to do that are perfectly acceptable if not mandatory for the maintenance of a stable society and nobody really cares. you'd be surprised how fast most of the common libertarian "axioms" fall to pieces under nuanced scrutiny.

[Jocabia]

Moderate alcohol consumption doesn't endanger one's life. Red wine can actually lower the chance of a heart attack. Not wearing a seatbelt increases your chances of dying by a significant amount. History has seen Prohibition come and fail. Seatbelt laws work and I'm not aware of one that has failed. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/DriverSafety/Pages/SeatBelts.aspx Denying a person the right to drink safe amounts of alcohol is very different from denying a person the non-existent comfort of being without a seatbelt.

That's only true if youre actually in a wreck, I don't know about you but most the time I drive I'm not in a car accident so therefor whether I wore my seatbelt or not wouldn't have matter (though for the record I always do).

It's not a matter of comfort it's a matter from freedom vs tyranny. I mean, why not pass a law saying you have to lock your door every night. It would probably cut down slightly on robbery but so what? It's still wrong because it's forcing someone to do something against their own will.

Besides how many people who get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt are even doing it deliberately? How many people simply forgot to put it on? It seems like this is just another way to raise revenue for the govt.

They're called accidents for a reason. Since getting in a wreck isn't up to you, necessarily, it's not a good argument to claim that you're not trying to get into one. The point is that when a situation comes up where a seat belt will prevent a wreck or prevent injury, there is simply no argument why you are being violated by being required to wear one.

[Alyakia]

It doesn't matter if you're forgetting to wear your seatbelt or deliberately doing it. You still haven't done it, which can pose a danger to others.

Ok, but how much of a danger to others? I mean having a pool in your backyard is dangerous (and we have some bullshit about that too) but youre still allowed to have it. Hell having a pool that doesn't have a fence around it is dangerous to others as well, does that mean people should be required to have a fence around their pool?

Let me ask you this, how much of a danger to others is it? I mean unlicensed drivers are generally considered enough of a hazard that we legally require people to be licensed so they don't harm others. Does the harm caused to others by drivers not wearing seatbelts rise to a similiar level?

are all of your posts going to be "you want to make people make seatbelts? then why don't you force all strawmen to roll around in immunoprotective safeballs and ban the sun?!"?

[Llamalandia]

Well if well being is the goal why not ban alcohol as well? I mean, how many drunk drivers die and/or are killed every year? How many people die from alcohol poisoning? I mean, seriously think about what's being said, basically people are arguing it's ok to force people to do one thing for their own good (ie wear a seatbelt) but at the same time not prohibit them from doing something (ie drinking) which would also be for their own good.

because

1) seatbelts laws can be enforced, banning alcohol can't
2) drinking is not always bad for you and in the cases it is there are a variety of laws and policies (from the state and from private entities) covering this area
3) seabelts ar

1) no neither can be entirely enforced. I mean i see peole on very very rare occasion not wearing a seatbelt and also not getting a ticketed it for it. Heck there's plenty of youtube videos of cops not wearing their seatbelts themselves.
2) Not wearing a seatbelt is also not always bad for you, in fact most of the time it doesn't matter at all, it only matters if you actually get into a car wreck.
3)???

[Arcturus Novus]

I honestly can't tell if the OP is trolling, or if they have very skewed views of road safety.

[Jocabia]

because

1) seatbelts laws can be enforced, banning alcohol can't
2) drinking is not always bad for you and in the cases it is there are a variety of laws and policies (from the state and from private entities) covering this area
3) seabelts ar

1) no neither can be entirely enforced. I mean i see peole on very very rare occasion not wearing a seatbelt and also not getting a ticketed it for it. Heck there's plenty of youtube videos of cops not wearing their seatbelts themselves.
2) Not wearing a seatbelt is also not always bad for you, in fact most of the time it doesn't matter at all, it only matters if you actually get into a car wreck.
3)???

2 is only relevant if accidents are entirely preventable and predictable. I assume the only way you'll ever get in a car accident is if it's your fault, yeah?

[Llamalandia]

That's only true if youre actually in a wreck, I don't know about you but most the time I drive I'm not in a car accident so therefor whether I wore my seatbelt or not wouldn't have matter (though for the record I always do).

It's not a matter of comfort it's a matter from freedom vs tyranny. I mean, why not pass a law saying you have to lock your door every night. It would probably cut down slightly on robbery but so what? It's still wrong because it's forcing someone to do something against their own will.

Besides how many people who get ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt are even doing it deliberately? How many people simply forgot to put it on? It seems like this is just another way to raise revenue for the govt.

They're called accidents for a reason. Since getting in a wreck isn't up to you, necessarily, it's not a good argument to claim that you're not trying to get into one. The point is that when a situation comes up where a seat belt will prevent a wreck or prevent injury, there is simply no argument why you are being violated by being required to wear one.

I order you to wear an orange wrist band all day tommorrow so people can see you more easily. It's for your own good and safety and if you don't do it I'll fine you a hundred dollars, again for your own good. There's really no reason not to wear it and it will make you marginally safer by making you slightly more visible to others.

Requiring someone to do something without a good reason is the problem here. (For their own good doesn't qualify, because it's inherently paternalistic).

[Alyakia]

because

1) seatbelts laws can be enforced, banning alcohol can't
2) drinking is not always bad for you and in the cases it is there are a variety of laws and policies (from the state and from private entities) covering this area
3) seabelts ar

1) no neither can be entirely enforced. I mean i see peole on very very rare occasion not wearing a seatbelt and also not getting a ticketed it for it. Heck there's plenty of youtube videos of cops not wearing their seatbelts themselves.
2) Not wearing a seatbelt is also not always bad for you, in fact most of the time it doesn't matter at all, it only matters if you actually get into a car wreck.
3)???

1) the mafia isn't going to spring up and create a violent cartel of seatbeltless cars, and even if they did we can identify them with ease and i don't think anyone would give enough of a shit to bother, is what i'm saying
2) it's good most of the time when it matters though, so...
3) sorry i got kinda bored with my obvious points and started imagining how your name would be pronounced it was welsh. probably something like clamalandia. really changes the meaning.

[Llamalandia]

1) no neither can be entirely enforced. I mean i see peole on very very rare occasion not wearing a seatbelt and also not getting a ticketed it for it. Heck there's plenty of youtube videos of cops not wearing their seatbelts themselves.
2) Not wearing a seatbelt is also not always bad for you, in fact most of the time it doesn't matter at all, it only matters if you actually get into a car wreck.
3)???

2 is only relevant if accidents are entirely preventable and predictable. I assume the only way you'll ever get in a car accident is if it's your fault, yeah?

No I'm not denying that you might get into an accident, my point was that that is such a rare occurence that in 99% of the cases seatbelts don't do anything. Just like how in most cases drinking doesn't lead to alcohol poisoning.

[Jocabia]

They're called accidents for a reason. Since getting in a wreck isn't up to you, necessarily, it's not a good argument to claim that you're not trying to get into one. The point is that when a situation comes up where a seat belt will prevent a wreck or prevent injury, there is simply no argument why you are being violated by being required to wear one.

I order you to wear an orange wrist band all day tommorrow so people can see you more easily. It's for your own good and safety and if you don't do it I'll fine you a hundred dollars, again for your own good. There's really no reason not to wear it and it will make you marginally safer by making you slightly more visible to others.

Requiring someone to do something without a good reason is the problem here. (For their own good doesn't qualify, because it's inherently paternalistic).

Prove that it increases public safety and you'll have a point. Good luck.

There is a good reason. That's the problem. And you can't come up with a reason not to do it.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/

Seat belts save more than 10,000 lives per year. You got a reason why those 10,000 lives shouldn't be saved. Please, enlighten us.

[Llamalandia]

1) no neither can be entirely enforced. I mean i see peole on very very rare occasion not wearing a seatbelt and also not getting a ticketed it for it. Heck there's plenty of youtube videos of cops not wearing their seatbelts themselves.
2) Not wearing a seatbelt is also not always bad for you, in fact most of the time it doesn't matter at all, it only matters if you actually get into a car wreck.
3)???

1) the mafia isn't going to spring up and create a violent cartel of seatbeltless cars, and even if they did we can identify them with ease and i don't think anyone would give enough of a shit to bother, is what i'm saying
2) it's good most of the time when it matters though, so...
3) sorry i got kinda bored with my obvious points and started imagining how your name would be pronounced it was welsh. probably something like clamalandia. really changes the meaning.

2) I could say the same thing about bulletproof vests though. I mean most of the time I'm not being shot at but hey, when it matters that vest is really handy, and really is modern body armour really that uncomfortable?

[Jocabia]

1) the mafia isn't going to spring up and create a violent cartel of seatbeltless cars, and even if they did we can identify them with ease and i don't think anyone would give enough of a shit to bother, is what i'm saying
2) it's good most of the time when it matters though, so...
3) sorry i got kinda bored with my obvious points and started imagining how your name would be pronounced it was welsh. probably something like clamalandia. really changes the meaning.

2) I could say the same thing about bulletproof vests though. I mean most of the time I'm not being shot at but hey, when it matters that vest is really handy, and really is modern body armour really that uncomfortable?

I could actually list all sorts of ways wearing body armour would be a problem. And it still wouldn't save other people, just you. Unlike seat belts which also protect others.

But, hey, if you can make the argument go ahead. How many lives will be saved by wearing body armor? Be specific and show your work.

[Alyakia]

1) the mafia isn't going to spring up and create a violent cartel of seatbeltless cars, and even if they did we can identify them with ease and i don't think anyone would give enough of a shit to bother, is what i'm saying
2) it's good most of the time when it matters though, so...
3) sorry i got kinda bored with my obvious points and started imagining how your name would be pronounced it was welsh. probably something like clamalandia. really changes the meaning.

2) I could say the same thing about bulletproof vests though. I mean most of the time I'm not being shot at but hey, when it matters that vest is really handy, and really is modern body armour really that uncomfortable?

honestly we'd probably just start using armour piercing ammo. wearing amour all day is kinda different from clipping a belt in.

[Jocabia]

2 is only relevant if accidents are entirely preventable and predictable. I assume the only way you'll ever get in a car accident is if it's your fault, yeah?

No I'm not denying that you might get into an accident, my point was that that is such a rare occurence that in 99% of the cases seatbelts don't do anything. Just like how in most cases drinking doesn't lead to alcohol poisoning.

I am completely in control of whether or not I get alcohol poisoning. I cannot prevent getting into accident.

You really suck at analogies. You haven't come up with one that's even somewhat comparable.