There are states that require cars to be crash tested with the dummies without seatbelts. This then encumbers auto designers to cater for that crash test. Some cars will never be homologated in the US because of this, loads of other cars could be more spacious and safer if it was not for this requirement. And it is just 3 states.
This is why the libertarian argument does not make sense to me.
You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as well:
1. Your body as a projectile could harm others.
2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your friends and family.
3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require things like air ambulances etc...
4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or pedestrians and injuring and killing them.
Which is also why I don't think motorcycle helmet optionality makes sense from a "freedom" point of view either:
1. If your melon hits the ground and splatters open, there's going to a crash scene investigation that closes down the road for many hours, causing traffic chaos. As opposed to a helmet protecting you, where you're more likely to survive, and hobble off the road and get of the way of traffic.
2. Insurance companies generally do not have policies that offer helmet-optional and helmet-mandatory options, so if a motorcyclist who does not wear a helmet gets into a crash and needs a payout (life, or medical treatment), then those riders who do wear a helmet (which tend to have less severe injuries, and thus smaller payouts) have larger premiums through no fault of their own. At the very least there need two different types of policies.
1. I'm not sure how that would happen in practice. If my body is the projectile, they would have to be immediately in front of my vehicle as it slams into whatever it hit. My body is likely the least of their problems in that scenario.
2. Emotional harm is a very difficult thing to protect against. In no way am I waving it off as unimportant, but people can be emotionally harmed by literally anything. We can care about that, but we can't easily regulate for it.
3. There is much lower hanging fruit if you are concerned with the societal cost of an unhealthy population. If we get to body disposal as top of the list I'll feel pretty damn good about where were at.
Add also the cost of healthcare when you do NOT die but are only severely injured.
You cannot have any honest libertarian lifestyle à la carte.
I'd be OK with libertarians opting out — but to be true they must opt out of EVERYTHING. You want to smoke, drink raw milk, and not take your vaccines? Fine, you can organize your own self-insured healthcare too. And you go to the back of the queue and not get treated when a participating member of society has a health issue.
The problem is those "free" "do my own research" types feel no responsibility for maintaining the wellness of their neighbors or even themselves, but DO still show up at the emergency room and expect full medical treatment when the DO get sick/injured from raw milk, no vaccines, no seatbelts, or whatever.
They are not libertarians, they are freeloaders, lying to themselves about libertarian "philosophy" to justify freeloading on the systems and herd immunity built and maintained by their smarter and more conscientious peers.
That's a very deep rabbit hole to go down, to deep for this conversation. Suffice it to say that if a pathogen has a vaccine that is proven safe and effective there's a reasonable case to be made for requiring it. It gets very murky when we try to define "safe" and "effective" though.
Now imagine junkies could get high off of seat belts.. then how do you regulate??
7% seatbelt use tax, with a required seatbelt fastener technology that charges you every click
There are states that require cars to be crash tested with the dummies without seatbelts. This then encumbers auto designers to cater for that crash test. Some cars will never be homologated in the US because of this, loads of other cars could be more spacious and safer if it was not for this requirement. And it is just 3 states.
Sure, are you assuming I'm not similarly opposed to that authority?
If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself.
The government shouldn't have any mandating what we can and can't do if the only victim in said crime would be the same person doing that thing.
This is why the libertarian argument does not make sense to me.
You crashing without a seatbelt and dying harms others as well:
1. Your body as a projectile could harm others.
2. The emotional harm of others seeing your dead body and the horrific injuries. Also the emotional harm on your friends and family.
3. The increase to my taxes and healthcare costs because people have to deal with your dead body. Also, if you almost die when going through the windshield, the costs are much greater trying to save your life than if you wore a seatbelt, as the injuries will be greater and could require things like air ambulances etc...
4. Your body being unrestrained means that your car can cause way more damage, including hitting other cars or pedestrians and injuring and killing them.
It is not a victimless crime.
Which is also why I don't think motorcycle helmet optionality makes sense from a "freedom" point of view either:
1. If your melon hits the ground and splatters open, there's going to a crash scene investigation that closes down the road for many hours, causing traffic chaos. As opposed to a helmet protecting you, where you're more likely to survive, and hobble off the road and get of the way of traffic.
2. Insurance companies generally do not have policies that offer helmet-optional and helmet-mandatory options, so if a motorcyclist who does not wear a helmet gets into a crash and needs a payout (life, or medical treatment), then those riders who do wear a helmet (which tend to have less severe injuries, and thus smaller payouts) have larger premiums through no fault of their own. At the very least there need two different types of policies.
1. I'm not sure how that would happen in practice. If my body is the projectile, they would have to be immediately in front of my vehicle as it slams into whatever it hit. My body is likely the least of their problems in that scenario.
2. Emotional harm is a very difficult thing to protect against. In no way am I waving it off as unimportant, but people can be emotionally harmed by literally anything. We can care about that, but we can't easily regulate for it.
3. There is much lower hanging fruit if you are concerned with the societal cost of an unhealthy population. If we get to body disposal as top of the list I'll feel pretty damn good about where were at.
4. Isn't 4 the same as 1?
6 replies →
Add also the cost of healthcare when you do NOT die but are only severely injured.
You cannot have any honest libertarian lifestyle à la carte.
I'd be OK with libertarians opting out — but to be true they must opt out of EVERYTHING. You want to smoke, drink raw milk, and not take your vaccines? Fine, you can organize your own self-insured healthcare too. And you go to the back of the queue and not get treated when a participating member of society has a health issue.
The problem is those "free" "do my own research" types feel no responsibility for maintaining the wellness of their neighbors or even themselves, but DO still show up at the emergency room and expect full medical treatment when the DO get sick/injured from raw milk, no vaccines, no seatbelts, or whatever.
They are not libertarians, they are freeloaders, lying to themselves about libertarian "philosophy" to justify freeloading on the systems and herd immunity built and maintained by their smarter and more conscientious peers.
7 replies →
Are you assuming I don’t agree with you? I just stated a fact. People can interpret that fact however they’d like.
When someone else crashes into you on the street your tax dollars paid for, you should be free to not agree with seatbelts.
I don't follow, sorry. What does someone else crashing into me have to do with seat belts?
We do require car insurance for just such an occasion as one driver harms another.
> If I crash without a seatbelt on and die, my going through the windshield harms only myself.
Mostly, yes. Whereas if you fail to get vaccinated and therefore spread a disease, you are harming others.
That's a very deep rabbit hole to go down, to deep for this conversation. Suffice it to say that if a pathogen has a vaccine that is proven safe and effective there's a reasonable case to be made for requiring it. It gets very murky when we try to define "safe" and "effective" though.