@Leth - You asked for why I think the seat belt law was a bad idea and I provided it. The only counter arguments thus far in the thread have been that
1. Seat belt laws save lives
2. Seat belt laws save the government money

My argument about smoking and taking meds is that enacting those as laws would save orders of magnitude more lives and money. If you're OK with the erosion of your liberties for the number of lives and dollars saved by seat belt laws, certainly you would be OK with the government passing laws that govern your behavior in other aspects of your life so long as those laws save lives and money too.

Just for clarity: I called out this statement as a straw man ""the idea of "it's my car, i can do what i want" is ridiculous." I have never argued this. I argue that I can make the decision about my seat belt. I am 100% fine with a law that says I am not allowed to get intoxicated and then drive. I am 100% fine with a law that says I am required to stop at all red lights. I am 100% fine with a law that says I must yield to a pedestrian in the roadway. These behaviors affect other people and are justified in their regulation. Wearing a seat belt only affects me, silly conceivable yet extremely unlikely events notwithstanding.

"The only counter arguments thus far in the thread have been that
1. Seat belt laws save lives
2. Seat belt laws save the government money"

Maybe. I don't remember every post in the thread. But that's missing at least two other arguments:

1. "Wearing a seat belt is not a huge burden on you or infringement on your liberty, just deal with it." That's the point of having different levels of constitutional scrutiny for different kinds of government regulation.

2. "It's actually sort of enforceable, so if we make the law we can expect it to be generally followed." Banning smoking is a bad idea because it isn't going to work. It's not going to work because government isn't willing/allowed/able to infringe on our liberties to the extent necessary to make it work, and if it was, that'd be a whole new level of "not working". So instead we get black markets and drug-running and all those shitty outcomes. Where's the black market for cars without seat belts? When did the government install cameras in every home to make sure we wore seat belts when we drove? We don't have that. We just have half of all traffic fatalities being people who don't wear seat belts, in an environment where most people do.

So, yeah, I'm comfortable with the frankly miniscule amount of liberty erosion associated with seat belt laws. Doesn't mean I'm comfortable with the much larger liberty erosion that would be required to ensure I take my meds, or to ensure I never smoke a cigarette ever. And there's nothing inconsistent about that.

I mean, is this a serious discussion? Objecting to seat belt laws as some kind of incredible infringement on your personal liberty is such a First World Problems version of civil rights. Yeah, it's such a disgrace, we have seat belt laws, we're turning into the Soviet Fucking Union over here. Come off it.

"Objecting to seat belt laws as some kind of incredible infringement on your personal liberty is such a First World Problems version of civil rights. Yeah, it's such a disgrace, we have seat belt laws, we're turning into the Soviet Fucking Union over here. Come off it."

OK, since you're so wise, where would you draw the line at which encroachment on your liberty becomes unacceptable? Where do "First World Problems" transition into...what exactly? You don't see any slippery slope here at all?

you're suggesting that this is not already happening. i don't know about the usa, but here in austria you're not allowed to smoke at universities, train stations, pubs, restaurants, ...

not arguing about whether that's good or bad. it just sounds in your arguments like the government doesn't regulate smoking etc at all. they do.

I see a slope. Obviously. I identified seat belts as pretty goddamn high on the slope, and your other proposals as somewhere significantly lower. I don't need to draw an exact line to tell the difference between one and the other. Asking me to do so is pure distraction.

Now, your turn. First, where's the 'slippery' part? Is anyone (except you) advocating for mandating surveillance inside private residences to ensure people take their chronic disease meds, based on the fact that we currently engage our public police force to monitor licensed drivers on public roads for seat belt usage? Second, how do seat belts tell you *anything* about where we are on the slope compared to, say, the war on drugs?

As far as I can tell, you're in favor of people wearing seat belts, and people are wearing seat belts in no small part due to seat belt regulations, and drivers are generally safer in practice because they're wearing seat belts (though we can go back and forth on how drivers behave when wearing a seat belt and whether that's played any role in accident frequency), and seat belt regulations haven't played any role in transforming this country into an authoritarian hellhole outside the fevered imaginations of liberty fetishists. I'm willing to revise that opinion when you give me a good reason to. But waving your hands and exclaiming about some *other* hypothetical violation of liberty that hasn't happened and isn't related to seat belt regulations isn't going to do it.

Also: yeah, there's that business about smoking *in public*. Thanks for bringing that up, kasimax. Of course, that one's probably more controversial than seat belt laws despite that it actually regulates a potential danger the smoker imposes on others, but even so.

Not wearing a seatbelt should not be a crime.(note that it does not mean it should be legal, i am just saying you just can not have a criminal record for not wearing a seat belt) So the driver/owner of the vehicle can do what ever they so choose to in their vehicle. However it is the responsibility of the owner or driver to ensure that he/she maximises the survival probability of other occupants in the vehicle as well as reduces the possibility of damage of other people's property. Hence if you are going to force your passengers to wear a seatbelt you must also do the same. Otherwise you are just being hypocritical.

The idea you can do whatever you want with "your" car is silly. Ever heard of traffic laws? In fact, every property "right" you have exists purely and solely because society as a whole is willing to recognize your right and invests resources in enforcing that right. Otherwise, the first dude with a gun would relieve you of possession of "your" car. This social constructed nature of rights implies that all property rights are limited and circumscribed as needed for proper social functioning. You "own" your prescritpion drugs, but you can't resell them. You own your land, but can't just build anything at all on it. And on and on.

Here, using a car is subject to a license to do so that you are doing so safely. Ownership of a car in fact doesn't give you any right to drive it. That's a separate matter. Now, since society bears the costs of your stupidity if you get yourself injured (whether you're insured or not, increasing medical costs drives up everyone's insurance), it is entirely reasonable to put a condition on your use of vehicle as a driver or passenger to exercise reasonable precautions to avoid having negative externalities to your activities, hence seatbelt laws.

I guess this boils down to whether you think freedom is absolute or relative. I believe that freedom is a relative concept; that it has to be balanced with other concerns such as public safety and security. Some of you believe that freedom is absolute; that is is more important than anything else. If that is your belief, that is all fine, but it appears that the majority of people in the world subscribe to my theory, so sucks to be you.

Ogion if you were referring to me, i said the owner could do whatever they wanted to in their vehicle. The key word here is in. I said nothing about the road rules and if you were responding to me then you have misrepresented my argument. (Note that if another individual brings their own item into the vehicle then the owner of the vehicle has no jurisdiction over that item unless it inhibits the ability to keep the occupants safe.) As for state healthcare you are right in saying that the state has an invested interest to reduce the negative costs of an individual's actions. The question then becomes at what point do individual's hand over their natural rights to the state as well as obey the common law generated by the state. This is a question that is however beyond the scope of a law on seatbelts.

@aha, no I wasn't. I was tackling the question de novo. Basically, the notion that rights are always socially constructed and are therefore circumsciribed is pretty foundational, at least in American law. Thus, whether a driver or occupant can do whatever they want is a socially determined question. (And actually as a matter of law control over items brought into the car can in fact be imputed to the driver, for example open containers of alcohol, drugs, or guns) However, the question of how far a state can or should intrude in requiring particular conduct in a car (or anywhere else) is a policy matter, typically determined democratically. I'm not sure there is such a thing as "natural rights" at all, since rights only exist in relation to other people and are respected or not by social convention and agreement only.

All good ogion. Natural right refer to actions that you are born with. E.i. the right to defend yourself, the right to freedom of thought and consequently freedom of speech and the right of association. There might be a more technical term but i am no lawer. Although the state can inhibit them, they cant prevent you from enacting them.
The other points in the reply only reaffirm what i said before. The driver can prevent access to something or one if it inhibits their ability to keep the passengers and themself safe.

Actually. You aren't born with any inherent rights. Consider a kid in Somalia. If the local warlord wants the kid dead,they're dead. Period. Those higher level rights only exist by social agreement to respect them.

As far as natural rights, there's that whole "everything a man can do that is not exerting force on another man" non-aggression principle, suggesting that everything a man does is either his natural right or inherently wrong. Thanks, libertarians!

But the kid has the right to defend himself against his aggressor. The warlord can not stop the kid from putting up a fight, unless he is restrained. Here it is bigger gun diplomacy and i would imagine the warlord has the bigger guns and body than the kid unless the kid is the next Jackie Chan.

aha, that's a fine, morally consistent set of ideals, but Ogion's point is that the kid is still dead.

His point does not counter my argument though. Lethologica. I agree that the kid is more then certainly dead but his has the ability to defend himself even if the kid does a bad job at it.

"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."

You're the one who made the silly comparison to begin with by bringing up deaths caused by accidental fires via smoking. Sorry if you're not impressed with your own inane analogy.

"Natural right refer to actions that you are born with. E.i. the right to defend yourself, the right to freedom of thought and consequently freedom of speech and the right of association. "

That's a perversion of what natural right originally meant (per Hobbes). Natural right only referred to the right to do what is required to survive.

Umm i dont see how that counters my point putin. I might have used the wrong term but my argument is still valid. Plus one might argument that what i said fits your description just taliored differently.

It certainly changes whether one's natural rights extend to the right to drive without a seat belt.

I brought by natural rights and common law to highlight whether individuals should hand over their rights to the state or not. As i believe state healthcare was raised. It wasnt to argue a point for or against seat belts. It is a good point to bring up with the americian second amendment and gun control. I believe someone said before the non aggression principle which is suited for seatbelt debate. Why should someone point at gun at you to wear a seatbelt is effectively what happens if not wearing a seat becomes illegal. (The gun pointed by the state) that is what this debate practical boils down to at the end of the day.

The whole point of living in a state is that rights are forfeited in exchange for exiting the state of nature. And it is hardly as the only judicial harm that comes to violators is a an ordinance violation.

Hardly a gun being used by the state...I meant to say.

When a small fine becomes a state execution, you know there's some escalation being ignored along the way in the interest of moral outrage. You know, probably.

The final result is however the state and its gun. You break the law and you will face a gun if you dont comply. The proposal was that seatbelts should be mandated by the state. Hence a law/bill/policy needs to be passed to ensure that individuals obey the state and failure results in a criminal offense, because it is illegal.
I said that it shouldnt be a criminal offense and thus not illegal but it is the drivers responsibility to ensure that passengers have the greatest survival possibility. (Duty of care) Thus a seatbelt maximise that chance and should be worn, and if the driver forces occupants to wear a seatbelt, it would be hypocritical of them not to do so as well.

The fine i think is a logical answer to laws around duty of care, particularly for those under adult age. But having a law on whether you can or not wear a seatbelt is an invasion of the state into individual's life.

Lethologica, what happens if the person doesnt pay the fine? Then doesnt comply with the police when they knock on your door? The logical conclusion is that the state by force will remove you from the general society. Hence the usage of the gun.