Discussing this topic with libertarians is like discussing steak preferences with vegans.
I’d be fine with them not wearing a helmet if they also agree not to be a drain on society when they splatter their brains on the pavement. If they want to socialize the cost of their accident, they should be forced to wear a helmet to reduce the risk.
Now, they should have the opportunity to purchase special, and probably expensive, insurance if they can find someone to sell it to them.
The experts probably do know better. Sorry. I figured that motorcycles were more dangerous than cars, but I had no idea of how much more dangerous.
From a quick Google of motorcycle accident rates vs. car
I wonder how many non-helmet advocates know this.
Helmets vs no helmets:
From here
I’m sure that all the people killed while not wearing helmets were sure they weren’t going to get into a fatal accident.
And would you put that 14% into a retirement account? Would everyone? Especially those who are just making ends meet, or who just got laid off. You know, the ones whose 401Ks are in bad shape because they drained them to keep their homes.
We are wired to consider immediate gratification above long term gratification, and the discount rates on delaying gratification are nothing like what interest rates are. Go look at the research on how people decide stuff like this. If you are unaware of it, your position on Social Security comes from the very ignorance of the facts I mentioned before.
Plus you need to tell us what you’d do with the people who reach retirement age with nothing. Let them die on the street? Or would we wind up paying for them anyway.
Look up the number of people today who take their Social Security early and give up the 8% a year increase in benefits you get if you delay. How do you explain that decision. You think they’d be rolling in money if they weren’t forced to participate?
Yeah, the conservative elites would be - or they think they’d have all that money. Remember Joe the Plumber (not quite a plumber, actually) who was for policies that screwed him because he was convinced he’d be rich sometime in the future? He was normal. Stupid, but normal.
Some years back we had a libertarian doper who was dead set against the FDA because he was convinced that he could evaluate drug risks far better than those liberal elite doctors. Is that where you’re coming from?
Of course it’s more dangerous without a helmet - I don’t think anyone is disputing this. And I also don’t see anyone advocating for non-helmet wearing. Whereas you seem to be engaging in an outcome based argument - that the results of non-helmet wearing is worse than the outcomes of helmet wearing when measured by injury severity. But the argument in the context of elitism is not outcome based, at least not precisely.
Because you can’t measure the utility derived by an individual by not wearing a helmet, I don’t think you can say that they are better off. Sure, they are more likely to die and if that’s something they want to avoid, they should wear a helmet. Actually, if that’s the case they shouldn’t ride a motorcycle at all.
Allowing people to make that choice is a principled position, independent of the outcomes. More people will die. Let them.
The response to this is similar. You are focused on outcomes - what are the returns available vs. investment opportunities and which is a better outcome, etc. I don’t think it much matters if people are better or worse off from a financial measure. The idea of elitism is exactly what you are demonstrating - that people don’t know and someone else should decide for them.
I’m well aware that a great many people make poor choices. People should be able to make those choices, suffer the consequences for bad choices, and reap the rewards for good ones. Taking away those choices because someone knows better than the individual themself represents a type of liberal elitism.
Just a quick observation: The danger and the burden on the public by allowing helmetless riding is not zero. I know outcomes don’t matter much vs the principle, in your view.
Maybe they’re not trying to protect you from yourself but they just don’t want to deal with the mess you leave? Isn’t that fair?
It’s not about knowing better, it’s about utility and harm. Helmet laws result in a more prosperous society with less suffering. That’s worth the tradeoff against the freedom to choose this kind of really stupid decision, IMO. This is how I judge this sort of thing, and not everything is worth this kind of tradeoff. But some things are (how do you feel about mandatory education for kids, Bone?). YMMV.
My take on this, as someone that’s ridden since the 1970s, is that helmet laws are just as sensible as seatbelt laws. And I’m all for nannyism because far too often the counter-argument is simply reiterating that the most cherished human right is not guns, or voting, or reproduction - it’s the right to be stupid; that hallowed right, flowing downstream into the others mentioned, is how we get the shitshow you see in the news everyday.
Following on with the above point - motorcycles are not inherently more dangerous than cars. In an accident, you’re definitely more likely to be seriously hurt due to the lack of protection. But the reality - and people hate hearing this - is that the bulk of motorcycle riders are stupid, poorly trained, and woefully inexperienced and that’s why you get so many accidents. The US is pretty much the only first-world nation that will let some idiot with two afternoons of training hop on a 200-hp motorcycle wearing flip-flops, shorts and a bandana. Most people injured riding motorcycles aren’t just not letting someone tell them to wear a helmet - they’re not letting you tell them a bike is too powerful and/or heavy for a new rider, or that they shouldn’t drink and ride (50% of accidents involve alcohol), or drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds.
For a span there, say mid-80s to almost 2000, the accident rate dropped because the amount of new riders had dropped like a rock, and the bulk of people riding were experienced - the remaining 2000 accidents were just the idiots weeding themselves out of the gene pool. When the Boomers got to empty-nest age, a lot returned to riding or decided to finally take it up, and by gum they’ll do it their way because they’re rebels or pirates or something. So you get people riding too much bike too little time (sunny weekends from May to September) with no safety gear, and so poorly-trained that you’d be hard-pressed to find a motorcycle dealer in the US that doesn’t have a story of someone crashing a bike they just bought before they got home - often in the dealership parking lot.
I would also dare say that, as long as no one is being arrested for not wearing a helmet, you are still free to ride without a helmet.
And society—which actually ought to know best what’s good for society—is free to see you ticketed for your decision. I wouldn’t go so far as I think that offers a perfect solution, but I’d go so far as to say it’s really not that much different than the idea that you can opt out, provided you’re willing to pay for it. My biggest concern with such an ad hoc sort of arrangement, whereby tickets are viewed as the “fee” would simply be that I doubt the money from tickets is being used to care for the orphans of those who die from preventable injuries.
I don’t know how else to say this:
If the government is TELLING you that you MUST do something, vs assigning your own risk to it and deciding for yourself, that is what I am describing here as Nannyism.
We keep getting further and further away from the OP though so I think I’ll respond a few more times if necessary, but if no more clarity is reached than shown lately, I’ll bow out.
Is it nannyism when it can do harm to others, and not just one’s self? Even a lack of a helmet or seatbelt can cause psychological trauma to others, by causing them to have a greater risk of enduring being a participant (or even a witness) in a gruesome, deadly incident.
Lets take the word “government” out of the equation. It seems to have a specific triggering effect.
Do you believe there is any social agreement that can be made that impinges on your absolute rights of personal freedom but that is warranted to achieve a common social good? Or, as Bone seems to lean towards, that all such common social goods are intrusive and therefore nannyisms?
It depends. I had already agreed earlier in the thread that there is certainly a cost benefit analysis to be done. I am with Bone about SSN, BUT I think it provides a really good general service. I wish they let people opt out though. If need be, make the opt out an actual contract that disallows you falling back on the government for “retirement”.
In fact, most of the things that would fall into this type of category, if they allowed opt outs, I would be all for.
That may indeed be the compromise that would win the hearts of the masses, woo all the pretty girls and finally get the nice guy laid.
I’m curious about the “It depends” part. If SSN is nannyism, where do you draw the line? All taxes? Should all public services be fee based with an opt out clause?
I’m frequently confounded by how poorly the Libertarian philosophy is fleshed out. Perhaps it’s because Libertarians are never in danger of having to live with the consequences of their own convictions.
The it depends was me thinking that early on in my earning years, I would have contributed to SSN. Probably in my early 30’s, I would have opted out because I knew there were better return options.
My line isn’t really all that important but I guess my line includes most of the services we have today but with opt out clauses.
I also imagine that for any individual service I could be persuaded that the benefit outweighed the intrusion.
I guess I’ve never really considered myself a full on, Capital L, Libertarian but I suppose I do lean that way
That seems capricious. You seem to be saying that, ‘…all social intrusion is nannyism unless it can be shown to be of direct benefit to me.’
So what’s the Venn diagram look like with liberal elites and plain old everyday liberals? Are all libs “liberal elites?” Or just 1%? 10%
I might want to know if I need to step up my game.
In your early 30’s, would you have predicted a financial crisis that wiped out your 401K? What if by some cruel fate, you were just approaching retirement and your nice self directed 401K nest-egg was wiped out by a financial crisis. As you recall, many people lost their homes - which was their largest investment. It’s easy to claim that you’d be smarter where they were foolish. Perhaps you possess that superior skillset and intuition that would allow you to avoid financial ruin where others failed to do so. Are you convinced that you would not end up at square one, or worse, on the street with nothing left? If so, I admire your financial prowess. If not, I admire your confidence.
They can be evaluated for merit on a case by case basis. Why move from one specific item to the general all? Not all fact patterns are the same so not all things should be treated the same.
Perhaps because this thread is about what constitutes liberal elitism and not a treatise on libertarianism.