Comment by jstanley
7 months ago
Without regard to the merits of this particular case, in general, the offering of public services shouldn't be used as a pretext to infringe on freedoms.
7 months ago
Without regard to the merits of this particular case, in general, the offering of public services shouldn't be used as a pretext to infringe on freedoms.
Your right to buy a massive truck for driving two miles to your office job without a reversing camera infringes on the right if my three year old kid to live when you back up out of a parking space and can’t see behind the massive and oddly clean truck bed.
Similarly, you aren’t the only one that gets to use your car. Assuming you have friends, they might like a lift from you and not risk their lives doing so because you choose FREEDOM! over seat belts. Or the friends of your kid that you drive to soccer practice. Their mums and dads would like the freedom to have their kids reach adulthood.
We live in a society. We’re not Doctor Manhattan floating above the surface of Mars in perfect solipsistic isolation. It’s not about the government. It’s about your friends, family, neighbours, and community… all of whom are represented by the government.
The safety of your three year old child is your responsibility. If your child is run over then it’s due to your lack of adequate supervision in the face of lack of capability of the child to avoid the accident and/or education of not to stand in the way of moving vehicles.
Where exactly would you draw the line where responsibility would lay on this hypothetical car driver if even running over a child would be someone else’s fault?
That’s a legitimate question. Does it need malicious intent otherwise it’s up to everyone to protect themselves from others and no one has a responsibility to mitigate harm?
[flagged]
When public services are offered on balance, neither infringement can be considered in isolation. You have to compare the two infringements (in this case seatbelt regulation vs hospital responsibilities). Fighting each absolutely can often result in more total infringement!
The offering of public services would only be pretextual if it wasn't a genuine offer, right? So I'm not sure I'm understanding your argument.
Also public services are inherently shared services. The delay time and tax payer expense to individuals to have public employees to remove the dead bodies and broken windshields of folks who didn't wear seatbelts on the freeway is an imposition on the shared enjoyment of the freeway and on tax payer income.
Likewise even assuming every injury were treatable, every person getting their thumb reattached or whatever because of a preventable injury means a doctor's time isn't available to treat other injuries that couldn't be prevented. uninsured individuals with these injuries also increase the cost of insurance (one of multiple reasons why our medical costs in the US are higher per capita). Nor is every injury treatable to that extent.
Bet setting that aside, if you really want the freedom to cut off your own fingers accidentally, I bet all the dangerous tablesaws that currently exist will become available at garage sales or whatever very cheaply, so the frugal consumer still wins.
Arguably gives a whole new meaning to five finger discount.
People's actions have impact on the ability of public services to function. Do you think parking a semi trailer in front of the ER is a "freedom" worth defending? What kinds of deterrence or punishment is appropriate?