Kabbes I don’t understand how you can argue the validity of seat belt laws with…
when the system/s required are far from being the best for saving lives. Or is it that the least obtrusive and more passive devices are easier to mandate? I don’t think you can argue an altruistic principle such as saving lives while overlooking convenience/inconvenience when the mandated systems are based upon convenience. If safety and saving lives are the reasons for passing these laws, why the lack of safety devices on public transportation?
As for the OP, while I would not go around the block without buckling up, I think it is ridiculous to make seatbelt or helmet use an arrestable offense. You have to draw the line somewhere when trying to legislate safety. That in itself lends credibility to the slippery slope argument.
Sorry Hibbins, I’m not sure what your objection is.
As simplistically as possible: safety makes things good but inconvenience makes them bad. (Other factors can of course also be good or bad but I’m concetrating on these two).
Seatbelts increase safety. Hurray! They also incur a small inconvenience. Boo hiss. However in this case the inconvenience is so minute as to be negligable. Hurray!
I’m arguing that in the final analysis, when it comes to seatbelts, “The negatives experienced by those who don’t like such a law are minute when compared with the positives associated with lives being saved”.
Of course there are other safety measures that could be put in place. Evidently however (and despite the proponents of slippery slopes) it is felt that the inconveniences outweigh the benefits of mandating their use. Hence they aren’t mandated. In their cases “the negatives experienced by those who don’t like such a law” would outweigh the positives.
So yes, the least obtrusive devices are easiest to mandate. How is this a problem? It’s about getting the maximum bang for your bucks.
It’s nothing to do with maximum “bang for your buck”. A five-point harness and a helmet is a heck of a lot cheaper than developing and implementing passive restraint systems.
It is everything to do with “feel good” legislation. The proponents get to “feel good” that they are saving lives, while the rest of us are supposed to “feel good” that our government has our best interests at heart and that our lives are being “saved”.
I don’t argue against the validity of the claim that seatbelts and helmets save lives (at least more than it can be shown they take). I was arguing against your use of the altruistic stance that seatbelt laws are just from the standpoint that they are good for the public, when in fact you yourself admit that the only reason we have the level of legislation that we do now, is basically that that is the most that can be pushed past the general public. So, apparently the “majority” that wishes to legislate “safety” would quickly become a minority should any more inconvenience be involved.
Mind if I ask another question to go along with yours?
Out here in NC they are starting a new program next week. This one allows the cops to pull you over and ticket you for not being seatbelted, or having your children properly secured. It will be $50 or better out here, btw.
I’m a little uncertain, but I thought that you could not be pulled over just for seatbelt infractions. Only ticketed if that was also found in a regular traffic stop. Has that been changed?
And…arrested man? For not buckling up your kids? I mean, I see your point, but is that going a little far for a misdemeanor?
below you stated that they do not grant me the right to exist independently. that sounds like a heck of a right you believe they have.
**
well i’m not going to follow your 4 step plan. i’ll argue as i see fit. i may or may not convince you. you have not convinced me of anything yet either.
**
i can also claim my statement is palpably evident. i believe mine, you believe yours, but you have not even tried to prove yours to me.
**
i’m sorry you read my argument so poorly. majority == natural law?? i can’t even fathom such an idea.
**
conflict of interest!! there’s a heck of a conflict. you say that government has rights to control me, and that they exist to resolve conflicts of interest. how can they resolve a conflict when it they themself that is one of the parties in conflict?? that is a mammoth conflict of interest!! they cannot even be allowed to make that decision based upon your statements.
OK, what about this.
People who choose to not wear their seatbelt have to get some extra insurance. You could get a “non-sealbelt wearing policy” from State Farm or whatever. Then the govenment is no longer telling you what you can or cannot do, but those who chose to take the time to click it on get some financial benefit.
Most states require you to have auto insurance anyway, right? You could just add this rider to it.
If your indivdual choice is this important to you, would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is?
And then those of us who feel it is imporant to wear their seatbelt and who worry about rising insurance rates will shut up about all of this.
Some insurance companies do stuff like this with motorcycles. If you bring in your approved helmet when you sign up for insurance, you get a cheaper rate. But if you ever get into a wreck without a helmet, your insurance in void.
Just a thought.
aenea I am not sure about every state but I was pulled over about two months ago when I went through a “seatbelt trap” here in Oklahoma. I was issued a 20 dollar ticket and allowed to go on my way. However the latest decisions by the supreme court says that now I can be arrested and taken to jail for that violation. My opinion? That sucks.
.
Probably but I will extend the benefit of the doubt if it means that kids are kept safe by us adults until they are grown and can make their own decision to buckle or not to buckle.
without getting into whether the insurance system should be changed altogether, this sounds ok to me. [i almost suggested it myself in my previous post.]
GadgetGirl: In theory, I would certainly support extra insurance premiums for people who choose not to wear seatbelts, IF it can be shown that they contribute to higher insurance premiums for everyone else.
I think the problem would come in the practice. If a person bought the cheap, seatbelt-required insurance, and then got in an accident while not wearing it, the first thing he’s going to do is buckle up after the fact if he’s physically able. If he’s not able, he’ll claim that he took his seatbelt off AFTER the accident, and the insurance company will have to try to prove otherwise.
Of course, in some percentage of cases it will be impossible to make that claim (like if a body is ejected from a car and the seatbelt is intact). But in general, this would probably cause endless headaches for the insurance company.
The insurance idea ain’t gonna fly, folks. You’re missing the point of how insurance premiums are priced. Insurance companies aren’t some kind of altuistic entities out to protect your sacred right not to wear a seatbelt. They are profitmaking organisations.
They would have to prove to their own satisfaction that those who do not wear seatbelts constitute a higher risk (i.e. expected payout is higher) than those who do wear them. If they manage this, they would then have to work out the appropriate “non-seatbelt” surcharge. This takes data. I would not have thought that the data is not available in anywhere near the quality required.
Furthermore, it takes time and money to add a new rating factor to an insurance contract. The insurance company would want to be sure that there was a market for it. They also need their extra rating factor to give them a market edge so that their “seatbelt” grade insurance is priced more competitively than before.
Knowing how insurance companies work, don’t be holding your breath for this particular solution.
dixie - I’m not claiming the government has rights over you; I’m claiming that you have no rights over the government. Indeed, I’m claiming that you have no intrinsic rights at all. I have, however, said that to avoid a debate on rights (though we can start one in another thread if you want), I’ll accept the US consitution as giving you the rights that it confers. But your argument against being forced to wear a seatbelt rests on some kind of “natural” rights that you are born with. If you want to present this as an argument, you need to support it. And you need to support it with more than “I believe that we are all born with them”. Because I will point to numerous counter-examples all over the world to suggest that you are not born with them. I suggest that you re-read amrussell’s Socratean argument that backs up my point of view.
whether or not i have rights, i claim that government has no rights. you said above that you are not claiming gov’t has rights over me, yet you then state that the us constitution gives me rights. that is a presumed gov’t right! ie, to confer, and hence not confer, or to restrict or remove or regulate rights, of individuals. they do not have those rights. the have the power to try to do so, but to do so is a misuse of power rather than a right to do so.
the us constitution does not give rights.
referencing the bill of rights, 4th amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
read this sentence carefully. it does not confer a right to the people. it states that "the right of the people shall not be violated.
in the text leading up to the bill of rights:
“The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its
powers…”
talks about government power, and says that the bill of rights is to prevent abuse of governement power.
from the 2nd amendment:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
is not confering a right. it is restricting govt’s use of power.
the 9th:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
clearly states that the constitution is not granting rights, but rather listing [enumerating].
I, personally, do not think that the concept of “natural” or “inborn” rights are logically sound. The Socratean argument above that I referenced before pretty much sums it up. I would therefore prefer you to justify not wanting to buckle up by using more than a vague reference to such rights.
I am willing to concede, for the sake of this argument, those legal rights that you enjoy in the US. I do this to avoid getting into a hijack about the nature of rights themselves with legal eagles of the SD. I know next to nothing about US law and so am circumnavigating this issue by throwing my hands up and saying “you want 'em, you got 'em!” I reiterate - this is a concession on my part!
I am not saying that the government has “given” you these rights. I am saying that I am willing, for the sake of argument, to assume that you are entitled to such rights. It’s your country, your constitution, your bill of rights - I don’t want to interfere in that. You may start your argument assuming those as a given. I will not argue it.
You are therefore free to use US law to justify your opposition to seatbelt laws. If you can do this, I concede.
If you cannot do this however, then you need to do more than simply claim your god-given right to not wear a seatbelt. I see no evidence for such a right. I see no evidence that you are “born free”. Prove it to me.
i’m not into what gov’t does or does not allow me. but you had referenced the rights given in the constitution, i was replying to that, in that the constitution does not give rights, but limits the powers of government.
as for god-given… i’m an atheist, so i’m not down for that.
why is the burden of proof on me?? you are asserting that i am not born free. i can’t even begin to understand why or how you could believe that. [don’t make me right… or wrong.] i was born. there exists a system that claims that animals of the same species as those that are members of the system are subject to the system by reason of being a member of that species. i refuse to join that club. you say i don’t have a choice, i am a member of the system because i’m of the same species, and since i’m in the system i must comply. but i’m a stubborn bitch and i refuse to join or comply.
i refuse to accept that a government or anyone else has the right to tell me what to do with my life, my body, or my mind. i don’t need to claim natural rights, you do in order to support the idea of my subjegation.
by what right does a government tell individuals what to do with their mind, body, or life?? does it have some natural right?? tell me why i don’t have natural rights, but a government does. tell me why i cannot tell a government what to do, but it can tell me what to do. government is artifical, it is human-made. it governs only with the consent of the people. well, i don’t consent.
You have no right to not wear seatbelts in your car. You have, in fact, no right to drive a car. You are licensed by the state to drive that car for as long as you abide by the laws of the state, and no longer. Driving a car is as fundamentally different from free speech or bearing arms as you can get. The license you get is granted to you by the government to drive on government built and maintained roads under the laws legislated by that government. This is not, never has been, and never will be an inalienable right of any sort no matter how many times you say it or how loudly or insistently you say it. Legally and morally this is simply, plainly wrong.
hmm. dixie, I think we have somewhat of a language barrier - you are taking my words very literally. When I say “god-given right”, I’m not suggesting that God actually has decreed that it is your right to not wear a seatbelt. It’s hyperbole. Don’t sweat it.
There is an underlying point though: rights only make sense in the context of an authority that can protect those rights. Otherwise they are just hot air. If God isn’t granting you that right (and I too am an atheist) then who is?
Now, about the “right” of government to tell you to wear a seatbelt. You ask on what basis they have that “right” and indeed on what basis they derive the “right” to insist that you are part of their society.
At its most basic level the answer is simple: force.
The force derives from the fact that the overwhelming majority of people do consent to live in a society and obey the majority rule, subject to your various founding documents. And they (each and every one of those individuals, not some arbitrary ‘gummint’) insist. They live there too and they insist that if you want to coexist with them, you must follow these rules. They enforce this with power of numbers.
If you assert disagreement with the derived rule, then there is a conflict of interest between your so-called “rights” and theirs. Only they have an authority to protect theirs and in this case you don’t.
In the end it is nothing to do with rights, since rights can only be granted by authority and there is no authority to which you are happy to answer. It’s all to do with power.
So buckle up.
But now for the good news: if you don’t like the law it is possible to change it. You just have to gather support. But to gather that support you have to justify your opposition, which means that you have to come up with a convincing counter-argument. And a convincing counter-argument is not some hand-waving about inborn rights.
Well DUH!
I never suggested that this insurance would be cheap.
It will be like $800 a month, but if your right to not wear a seatbelt is THAT important to you…
Oh good lord. I give my expertise to describe why insurance companies won’t be willing to sell such an insurance and you come back with “well duh! It won’t be cheap”. May I see your data that has allowed you to proclaim such a statement? May I ask your actuarial credentials that allow you to circumvent the hideous calculations involved in such a pricing that means that you can declare it to be “like $800 a month”?
Forget the expense. The actual value of the surcharge is irrelevant. It’ll never be priced in the first place.
