I’m not buying this argument. If one is hit hard enough to inhibit their ability to remain in the same spot, I’m doubting the necessary reaction time, not to mention the skill needed, will have much of an effect in keeping the vehicle from endangering others. I wouldn’t doubt that there will be exceptions, but I’m not buying that this is enough to take away the freedom to be stupid.
We can do this with any freedom. Smoking causes lung cancer. Patients with lung cancer often need emergency treatment that causes emergency personnel to be called to the hospital. Driving to a hospital is a risk that sometimes ends in loss of life. Tobacco should be banned.
Then where do we draw the line? Should we have “laws mandating healthful eating, proscription of smoking and refusal to permit reproduction of marginal genes, or parenting by the incompetent”?
One compelling you to alter your behavior vocally is not a violation of any freedom (here in the U.S., I don’t know about anywhere else). If you meant compelling you in another way that is a violation, you’d have to specify.
In every case? Cogent to whom? Most laws are not voted on by society. I would guess that the majority of folks in Kansas weren’t happy about the results in Brown v. Board of Education, but we don’t, and shouldn’t, base where freedom begins and ends on majority rule.
You don’t buy which argument? If seatbelt use can be shown to help the driver maintain control while undertaking evasive maneuvers, after spinning on ice, or after a collision, then the seatbelt law is not just protecting drivers from themselves (as is argued in this thread), but is in fact protecting others from drivers in these situations.
I believe that this is as much the motivation for the law as the idea that it may save lives. It gives an officer virtual carte blanche to pull over any vehicle on the road - and at the end of the day, it will just be the officer’s word against the driver’s as to whether or not a seat belt was actually being worn at the time of the stop, and the officer’s word is generally given weight over a civilian’s.
Right there in that quote I responded to. Since you said “The difference is that disregard of traffic lights endangers others,” it’s reasonable to infer that taking “others” out of the equation would cause there to be no difference than not wearing a seat belt, since the only danger would be to the person driving recklessly.
No response to my observation that you’re under the impression driving is a constitutional right, is it safe to assume you agree that driving is some inalienable right, and not a privilege subject to terms and conditions?
Any prior doubt that my original inference was incorrect can reliably be dismissed.
I am not sure how the right to reproduce has any relationship to the privilege of driving. Comparing the ability to eat at McDonald’s with the privilege of driving is something else that I don’t quite understand.
And? Where did Chief Pedant infer that “it should be OK to run red lights and drive at reckless speeds, as long as nobody is around?” He didn’t, and he explained why in his follow up post where he said, “it is impossible to determine that no one else is in danger and that no other property would be damaged.”
How about smoking? Mountain climbing? Does the Constitution specifically mention that any of these actions are rights?
He didn’t. He compared eating at McDonald’s with not wearing seat belts (or more specifically, not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle). :
His point is simply that it’s okay to force people to wear seat belts because not wearing them is a monetary cost to society, then banning unhealthy food should be okay for the same reason.
That’s one of the problems right there. 25K for an ambulance ride? Reminds me for the time in college I paid $150 (early 1990s) for a doctor to tell me my toe was infected. No treatment, no medication, nothing but “You toe is infected.”
Whenever you talk about medical costs, insurance costs, and legislation, expect irrationality. I, for one, am on the personal liberty side. Look at our new national debt after the Obama bailouts (yes I know the feds are different than state govts) and then explain to me how my not wearing a seatbelt adds to the public burden.
I think you might be conflating inference with implication. Anyhow, I see we’ve moved the yardstick from “other persons” to “other persons and property.” I think it’s best to let Chief Pedant speak for himself.
They are not rights, and they are both regulated. Equating the ability to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt and being immune from state prosecution because it falls under “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” or some construct that requiring a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle is some sort of invasion of privacy is a farce.
What exactly constitutes unhealthy food? Technically, any food could be unhealthy, depending on how it’s prepared and how much is consumed. Surely you’ve heard that drinking too much water can be lethal. Do we ban water? Get real.
Yes, there is a cogent argument that can be advanced. You know how I know? Because there is a cogent argument that can be advanced for just about every position and point of view that exists on just about any topic whatsoever.
You’re driving on property owned by the government. If you’re driving on your own property, don’t wear a seat belt. Driving on government property is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution or anything else.
What the hell are you talking about? No yard stick has been moved. You said:
Chief Pedant never said any such thing and he explained why. Adding “property” to “other persons” didn’t change anything. He didn’t say it, imply it, or infer it.
So, you believe the government should be able to regulate any activity not specifically mentioned in the Constitution any way they please, simply because that activity wasn’t mentioned as being a “right”?
No, you get real! Comparing water to unhealthy food is ridiculous and I’m guessing it isn’t scoring you any points to those reading your argument. The majority of the foods available at McDonald’s constitute unhealthy foods. Do you not know this and require cites?
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition )
Other than going from “persons” to “persons and property,” you’re right.
It changes things a great deal. It’s entirely possible to drive 50 miles and not see any persons. Good luck walking 50 feet without seeing property. Property is inanimate, you know?
I believe the government has a vested interest in thinking for society, because society has demonstrated time and again it is generally incapable of thinking for itself.
Before I go any further, might I implore you to stop butchering the English language? Food is not unhealthy, it’s unhealthful (unless it’s rotten and wilted, of course, but that’s certainly not what you meant).
Now then. You have failed to define what constitutes unhealthful food. Please do cite the “majority of the foods available at McDonald’s constituting unhealthful foods.”
And while we’re at it, when exactly does food become unhealthful?
Eating McDonald’s once a month, while maintaining an otherwise balanced diet with regular exercise™ will not cause any health issues. Eating McDonald’s four times a day is going to cause health issues.
Drinking a gallon of water a day will not cause any health issues. Drinking 8 gallons of water a day is going to cause health issues.
Okay, so people say seatbetls save lives of auto drivers, and helmets save lives of motorcycle drivers. In the interest of safety, wouldn’t more lives be saved if auto drivers wore seatbelts and helmets?
What would you think of a law that required you to wear a helmet while driving your car?
(Sorry. Just noticed someone else mentioned this.)