Seatbelt Laws

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Financial issues seriously don't cut it as justification for curtailing the ability to choose in this situation.

Well, ultimately, beyond the issue of money, (which matters some pay for the irresponsibility of others), we could even see it as a moral issue. Deliberately having an attitude which can put you in danger can be blamed in the sense that you don't care about the fact that if you effectively comes into troubles, some people will come to help you. You will first take the time of other people for something caused by a deliberate choice, and second, it takes time of rescuers when other people in trouble may need to be helped because they are in troubles and maybe by some things not caused by a deliberate choice.

So, for example, if you don't put your seat belt, deliberately, because you think it's your choice, if you have an accident and that people come to rescue you, and if someone else has an accident just after you and that there is no more people to rescue them right now, because the last ones have been on you. Then, your choice would have as consequence the fact that some who didn't have an accident because of a choice receive less care, or receive it late, and thus their life is possibly more endangered.

In short, a deliberate irresponsibility could have costs for others that are not necessary financial, but far more important than that...

[© tweed]

there are far more egregious assaults on liberty.

[Earth]

there are far more egregious assaults on liberty.

That's irrelevant, the same way that one doesn't need to ignore one problem because another is more significant.

So, for example, if you don't put your seat belt, deliberately, because you think it's your choice, if you have an accident and that people come to rescue you, and if someone else has an accident just after you and that there is no more people to rescue them right now, because the last ones have been on you. Then, your choice would have as consequence the fact that some who didn't have an accident because of a choice receive less care, or receive it late, and thus their life is possibly more endangered.

In short, a deliberate irresponsibility could have costs for others that are not necessary financial, but far more important than that...

I get the sense that this is a very round about way of looking at the problem, specifically in an external context that still doesn't adequately address the issue of limiting individual choice in the matter. The problem I have with it, in a nutshell, is the feeling that it's correct to enforce one's health through legislation, where I don't believe it belongs.

I get what you're saying though. I can't get behind it because I think it really oversimplifies the problem. What if, say, another accident does happen, and another is not wearing his belt? Does the view towards accident victim A apply to B, since they both decided to not wear one? Are they diminishing the chances of medical care for another, for one another?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

So, for example, if you don't put your seat belt, deliberately, because you think it's your choice, if you have an accident and that people come to rescue you, and if someone else has an accident just after you and that there is no more people to rescue them right now, because the last ones have been on you. Then, your choice would have as consequence the fact that some who didn't have an accident because of a choice receive less care, or receive it late, and thus their life is possibly more endangered.

In short, a deliberate irresponsibility could have costs for others that are not necessary financial, but far more important than that...

I get the sense that this is a very round about way of looking at the problem, specifically in an external context that still doesn't adequately address the issue of limiting individual choice in the matter. The problem I have with it, in a nutshell, is the feeling that it's correct to enforce one's health through legislation, where I don't believe it belongs.

I get what you're saying though. I can't get behind it because I think it really oversimplifies the problem. What if, say, another accident does happen, and another is not wearing his belt? Does the view towards accident victim A apply to B, since they both decided to not wear one? Are they diminishing the chances of medical care for another, for one another?

Well, my only point was to say that, and I think that's the main argument that could be used here, such a choice makes that you deliberately give more odds that some people will have to come to rescue you, while they could give this time to other people who are not necessarily in troubles because of a choice they did. I see it as some civisme (that's in French, the English translation I have seems to be a bit complicated: public-spiritedness, simpler word may exist) toward others. The society will come to help you if you're in troubles, so don't abuse of it, and avoid to be in troubles if you can, so that the society could better treat those who had less choice to be in trouble.

This only principle is enough for me to justify an obligation to wear something as a seatbelt.