The government has to shut down highways when a fatality occurs it is obligated to provide emergency services it has every right to obligate you to exercise safety.

If you are an adult then stop whining about being told to wear a seatbelt. It is petulant.

"By your logic we shouldnt have any traffic regs or public safety laws at all. "

Not true. Traffic regulations and safety laws should be used to stop YOU from hurting ME. Not to stop ME from assuming a risk where I know the potential negative outcome. Also, you're coming close to committing the common error of interpreting my stance on these laws as me saying it's not a good idea to wear the seat belt, or to wear the helmet. I think adults should make these decisions themselves.

"The government has to shut down highways when a fatality occurs it is obligated to provide emergency services it has every right to obligate you to exercise safety."

The government has to pay the costs of a ventilator when a low-income life-long smoker with emphysema gets pneumonia. Shouldn't we say that if you're poor and on government provided healthcare, the government should prohibit you from smoking?

So then you must think there should be laws requiring all people to wash their hands after taking a shit. Since its in the governments best interest to lower cost of hospital visits due to fecal-spread illness. Also covering ones mouth while coughing should be a law. Nobody should be allowed to go to Africa thats a law. Nobody should go outside without sunblock since sun causes cancer thats a law.

I'd give the 'troll award of the year' to this thread

@ Brainbomb: Let's imagine you are driving your "sovereign" car, and you have to stop for a moment due to a queue of traffic. It's a warm day and you have the passenger-side window wound down.

Now, I jump into your car through the open window, and murder you.

We established that you believe that in the sovereign state of Brainbomb's car, murder is still illegal.


Question: Who will arrest me and where will I stand trial? Where is the Supreme Court of Brainbomb's Car located? I cannot be tried in the USA, of course, as the car is a separate sovereign state (or so you stupidly claim).

Brainbomb's car doesn't have windows. It only uses air conditioning.

I assume you could be tried by the ICC or something. You traversed from one sovereign state into another to commit a crime. Do with that as you will.

Youd be unlawfully entering me without my consent. A war crimes tribunal would be held to establish if you entering my borders was a violation of geneva accords. At the very least you jumping into my vehicle to kill me assumes I am responsible for leaving my windows down when its nice out.
If however I was doing 80 down the freeway and you jumped into my car and killed me you actually would unlock an achievement instead.

@Prado its actually the other way around. I have no working air conditioner. My windows are always down in summer and my sunroof is always open. A compelling argument could be made that if I poke my head out the window and get decapitated while going absurdly fast then I have comitted the crime of trespassing onto govt. lands.

"You'd be unlawfully entering me without my consent."

I said I'd murder you, not rape you.

Now if my car is on a ferry boat and im in it with my windows down. with seatbelt on. and the ship sinks, I am now at fualt.

I basically see the ilegality of not wearing a seat belt as being more justified than other similar laws such as laws against committing suicide. It is dangerous, not only to you, but also for those who are in your family emotionally, though especially to those who are in the car, or are in the surrounding area. If you're not wearing a seatbelt and get thrown from a car, there are multiple ways that you coudl harm someone. also, if you stay in the car and there is someone else in it with you, you will be thrown around in the car, and will be likely to hurt them.

@OB_Gyn_Kenobi:

i think that seatbelt laws differ from smoking and alcohol laws et al in an important aspect - the state decides whether you're allowed to drive. if you turn (insert legal drinking/smoking age here), you are allowed to smoke/drink - in order to being allowed to drive, you have to obtain a driver's license. so the state actually gets to decide how and under what circumstances you drive. not saying that the government doesn't get to decide that for smoking as well, but the idea of "it's my car, i can do what i want" is ridiculous. no, you can't.

@tv - You argument again is just "it's a good idea to do this" and therefore should be a law. You add to your argument that there are conceivable situations where wearing a seat belt may protect other people. The likelihood that any of the potential harms that you state could occur as a result of not wearing a seat belt are remote.

Not to beat the dead horse, but if I smoke in my home, I could light the house on fire and kill my wife, my children, my pets, and both of my next door neighbors' families in the ensuing inferno. Ergo, smoking should be outlawed.

"the idea of "it's my car, i can do what i want" is ridiculous. no, you can't."

This in no way describes my stance. It's a straw man.

The state also requires you to drive with proof of insurance and failure to do so is also a crime. Hence I passed my tests. paid my bills. and insured myself. The car is mine. If I wanna get a rimjob while driving thats my business ive paid all the fees to make it my property. Hence you cannot enter it nor question what im doing in it.

Imagine if my car was also my home. An RV for example. My home you cant just break into it and start peeping into my windows. You cant look in my car to see whether im buckled in; anymore than I can break into your bathroom and hop in the shower with your wife. Its my property. my sovereign land. No person has the authority to enter my property or peek in my windows or theyd be arrested for being peeping toms.

Not too beat a dead horse here but to further drive this point home most states have decided its a crime to have tinted windows. There is a certain degree of window tint that is permissible but only to a state defined amount. Meaning they think its legal to look in your windows and see who you are and what your doing.

The police aren't people, they are cogs in the machine that is the state. Don't be so foolish. They do as is necessary for the preservation of order within the state. If that means reaching into your car and buckling your seatbelt, so be it.

I'd normally be against this kind of law, but as I see it, is sort of a contract. The government owns (most of) the roads. If you are driving on *their* roads, you have to follow *their* rules. This includes driver's license, drinking while driving, wearing a seat belt, etc. Now, if you are in your car driving around on your property and you don't have a license and you're plastered and not wearing a seat belt, all power to you.

Also, if you are driving on a private road, it should be up to the individual(s) who own that road to determine what rules they would like to impose upon people who choose to use their service.

Not to beat a dead horse but the number of fatalities due to accidents caused by smoking is not remotely comparable to traffic accidents without seatbelts.

Since we pay the taxes to create all these things dont "we" technically own them?

no.

Create what things?

@putin - You are a moron. I'm sure "accidents caused by smoking" is a small fatality number compared to traffic deaths, but do you honestly want to start comparing death numbers associated with cigarette use to those associated with automobile use to further your argument? You are a silly little person.

brainbomb, "we" technically "own" the military. Try using that as an excuse to go for a joyride in one of their tanks.

OBGYK: do you have an argument for why seat belt laws are a bad idea that doesn't work? If not, then please stop arguing about whether or not the government should mandate seat belts; you are instead arguing about whether the government should *have the power to* mandate seat belts, which is a significantly different conversation.

@"1. Why is it my responsibility to save the government money?"
The government is you, especially in american it is serving you, and it has a duty to make the best use of its income (your tax money). The government wants to save money because that is a popular thing to do with the people. So actually it works in the reverse way.

Whether enforcing seatbelt laws is actually the most effectve use of resources (compared, perhaps to investment in self-driving cars...) is also irrelevant, seat belt laws are popular with the people. Thus the government is representing...

"2. If we really want to save the government money, why don't we outlaw alcohol, smoking and firearms? Why don't we require people take medications to manage their chronic costly diseases?"

Popularity of these things. Welcome to the concept of democracy.

"do you have an argument for why seat belt laws are a bad idea that doesn't work?"

Why are you conflating the "bad idea" and "doesn't work" aspect with whether or not seat belts should be mandated?

It's a good idea to wear a seat belt. Seat belts work to save lives. I wear my seat belt without fail. It's a bad idea to have a law that forces people to wear seat belts. Said law is a bad idea because when you allow a government to make decisions such as this one for you, where does it end? Just because something is a "good idea that works" does not mean it needs to be a law. You can't argue that seat belt laws are OK, if you're not also prepared to say that other vices or behaviors that cause death and societal costs on scales that are orders of magnitude greater should also be outlawed. So until you state unequivocally that you are willing to outlaw smoking and mandate adherence to prescribed chronic disease medication regimens, perhaps it is you that should stop arguing.

"you are instead arguing about whether the government should *have the power to* mandate seat belts, which is a significantly different conversation."

That was the whole premise of the thread, genius. Look at the top, brainbomb posted "I am against seat belt laws. I own my car therefore it is my own sovereign state. No form of authority has any right to question what I do in my car."

Well, OBGYK, you responded to people talking about brainbomb's arguments by calling it a straw man of your position, so I'm not inclined to take brainbomb's position as indicative of yours.

Taking chronic disease meds and smoking are things that happen in the privacy of your own home. You are also free to drive without a seat belt in the privacy of your own home. You don't need a license to take chronic disease meds, or to smoke. So why should I take those examples as equivalent to driving on public roads under a government-issued license?