This discussion on mandatory motorcycle helmets gets me wondering about the more abstract question of balancing the “right to do stupid things” vs. society’s interest in protecting its citizenry. Let us eliminate any direct economic cost to society from the discussion and eliminate any potential for a behavior to cause direct harm to others, does society have any justifiable vested interest in protecting individuals from themselves and from the consequences of their own decisions if it was true that only they would bear the consequences of their actions?
There are of course the two poles of this discussion: libertarian/anarchist and authoritarian. Each of those are easy. The former says that freedom of choice trumps societal interest every time and the latter says it never does. But in between those two polar positions it gets dicey.
I can see that an argument can be made for society viewing its citizenry as valuable assets and that an indirect cost is incurred by the loss of these assets, but in my mind that is not a big enough factor to trump the right of idiots to behave in idiotic ways.
But if not prohibit behavior, how about attempting to influence by economic incentives and disincentives?
Please feel free to use examples but please let’s not getr diverted into the specific cases. Yes, obesity has an economic impact by way of health insurance risk borne by us all, as does tobacco associated disease. But if those were somehow neutralized as factors, would society have any justifiable role in trying to keep its citizens well by regulation? Should it even be the governemnts role to educate about risks if no economic impact on others is incured?
The answer is ‘no’ of course, but it seems that economic impact or the dangers posed by certain behaviors is the reason behind most regulations. Some, like seat belt regulation, fits both.
Which leaves us with moral issues, like pedophilia, abortion, underaged drinking and so on.
The government still regulates marriage. This is the only example I can think of that doesn’t fall into any category. Maybe the government should get out of marriage all together?
Attempting to influence behavior by economic incentives/disincentives only goes so far. Should people who pay more be allowed to drive faster?
The problem is, people are not rational all the time; nor are they all knowing. Without government regulation, people will get killed from foolishness or ignorance. They get killed with them, after all.
Example : In buildings over 2 stories tall, I’m told, there’s a regulation that a stairway can’t go straight from the upper floors to the basement. Why ? Because people in a panic, due to fire for example, will often run down the stairs past the first floor exit and get trapped in the basement by those behind them or the fire.
This law is a good idea, because people are irrational; you can make all the speeches about “personal responsibility” you want, but in the real world “personal responsibility” is a self-righteous way of saying “screw 'em”.
Granted, the nanny state can go overboard; but let’s not pretend we’re all perfect superhumans who never need any help or advice or restraint to keep us from doing self destructive things. It’s not like the government can stop you if you want to be stupid bad enough ( like not wearing seat belts ), but we should at least put a fence in front of the metaphorical cliff.
I agree and disagree. The example cited of the firestairs is a good one, and a good law. But there are times when “Screw 'em” is the correct attitude to take. There are economic, non-coersive ways of achieving the goals of the nanny-state that preserve individual choice, including the right to be stupid. In the case of motorcycle helmets and seat-belts, it would be a simple matter to limit all insurance payoffs involving unhelmeted/unbelted people. Ride without a helmet, and your insurance company stops medical payments at $10K. After that, you are on your own. If that means you die…well, guess you should have been wearing a helmet, dumbass. Same result as the law, ie more people wear helmets, with a decrease in injuries, but without coercing people or nannying them.
You might have more people dead before everybody catches on, or you might have people thinking about the money and buckling up. You might get rid of the people who fail to helmet and buckle as a protest. No way to tell.
Um no. After 10K you build uo a huge debt but you keep getting the care in the hospital. You eventually declare bankruptcy and the hospital is stiffed for the rest and they bury that cost on the bills to those with insurance.
But that’s another discussion. This presumes a hypothetical where we do not have to pay for others’ consequences.
I think so because if you go to a hospital and ask people who have just been in a car accident if they would have rather drive a car with mandatory airbags and seatbelts most will say yes, just like most people who have just been mugged will say they wish they lived in a country with an active police force. If most people said ‘no, I’d rather not have some minor rights taken away or some regulations I don’t know about imposed in order to be safe’ then I’d disagree with it and say let people live as they want but that really isn’t how it works. naturally it can be taken too far but the nanny state is like blood pressure, too little is dangerous and shitty and so is too much. Finding the right niche is what you want to shoot for.
Point is, I think many/most people whose lives are saved due to these interventions will support them. Most of the naysayers will be people who don’t need or use the interventions, or who think they never will need or use them. My dad once got upset about ‘safety regulations in cars’ and it taking away our freedom, but if my brother and his daughter ever get into a car wreck and they are saved by mandatory airbags I’m sure he’ll be grateful his ‘freedom’ was taken away.
But, as you note, finding the right balance point is very hard, especially since “safety” regulations are rarely loosened once in place. Smoking is bad, so let’s ban it. Alcohol is bad, get rid of it too. You can’t do anything that might be fun, it’s too dangerous. Pretty soon we will all want to die, because all of the juice and flavor will have been sucked out of Life by Big Mother. Slippery slope argument and all that, but show me where a Nanny-State has ever voluntarily given up control once it had it. Without a revolution, that is.
Precisely. As long as your democracy is viable, you can kick out the eeee-vul nanny state any time; if it’s not, you’ve got worse problems than seat belt and helmet laws.
OK, ya got me. The general principle still holds, I think. Creeping Socialism = Creeping Nanny-State. Of course, that leads down a different path, ie how do you tell if a democracy is viable, in the short-run? Or are we too close to see the whole picture?
Why is it that we presume that whenever big government regulates something we all obey like droids to Skywalker? We don’t really have to wear seat belts if we don’t want to, right?
Abolition of prostitution laws in some EU countries. The concept of a nanny state is new, so you can’t really claim nanny states have undergone revolutions. Also the abolition of laws prohibiting premarital cohabitation and homosexual relations. The reality is developed countries don’t ban too much from what I can tell, so its hard to find examples.
You’re taking it too far. There is a difference between taxing cigarettes $2 a pack that kill millions a year and abolishing amusement parks because they kill 10 a year.
