Big Brother and the seat belt debate
I feel I must comment on the primary seat belt law addition to the transportation bill recently passed by the Senate.
If this law were to go through, officers would be able to pull someone over and ticket them, solely for not wearing a seat belt.
As it stands now, drivers can still be ticketed for not buckling up, but as long as it is in addition to something else, like speeding or failure to use a blinker, or something like that.
The Star Tribune article’s reader comments on this seem to range. Some say it’s a good idea and will keep people safe, while at the same time helping those who pay the insurance premiums for drivers without coverage who end up putting their head through the windshield.
While others think it should be up to the individual, not the government, to protect themselves. The whole “I don’t want Big Brother to protect me sort of thing.”
So, where does it end then? Proponents of mandatory seat belts say they saves lives and ergo, money. Fewer, less severe injuries mean less in health care costs.
So why stop there if the goal is to reduce health care costs? Make bicyclists wear helmets? Safety straps in the shower to prevent slippage? Or, should we simply outlaw any and all activity that could cause undue expense?
Mountain climbing, bicycling, skating, swimming, skiing, all have inherent risk that can result in severe injuries or death, and increase health care costs that are passed on to consumers. And none are things we really need to do.
You know how we could really reduce risk associated with any number of activities? Mandate that people just sit at home on their padded couch and watch TV all the time. We could save billions in unnecessary health care costs.
Mandatory seat belts is nanny-stateism at its finest. It’s government saying “we know what’s best for you.” We don’t want government in our bedrooms, but apparently inserting itself into our cars is just fine under the guise of “reducing injuries.”
I find it hard to believe there isn’t important work that needs doing while the state is busy buttoning our coats up for us on a chilly day.
It’s bad. It’s Nanny-state. It’s gov’t telling me what’s good for me, and imposing it via the law whether I agree or not. For the record, I personally always wear a seatbelt - it’s stupid not to. However, that’s not the point…
Unlike other traffic laws (speed limits, etc.) the safety factor for anyone OTHER than the seatbelt wearer is almost nonexistent. It’s an imposition on individual liberty with almost no over-riding public good served. In legal terms - there is not a significant compelling public interest which justifies imposing on the individual liberty.
For those that want to argue “it saves lives and money”: If someone wants to take a risk by not wearing a seatbelt that is their choice. Simply riding in a vehicle puts your life at risk- not wearing the seatbelt simply elevates the risk slightly. As for the money savings, let insurance companies charge different insurance rates for belters and non-belters (like smoker v. non-smoker for life insurance). We don’t need gov’t regulating individual behavior on this level.
{MisterC steps of soapbox}
Most new vehicles make an annoying sound every 15 seconds if you aren’t wearing your seat belt. I think that is genious, it’s certainly made me put my belt on.
Wow am I sick of “nanny-state.” Doesn’t it seem that the people who are upset about the seat belt law often had issue with the statewide smoking ban? They claim that this is about the “gov’t regulating individual behavior,” but fail to note that the regulation helps save lives.
PT said he finds it hard to believe that there isn’t “important work that needs doing while the state is busy buttoning our coats up for us on a chilly day.”
I bet he would consider anti-abortion laws part of that important work. Or perhaps gov’t should concentrate on limiting the liberties of homosexuals? I suppose that would constitute “important work.”
Wow Matt. If only you were as sick of the concept as you are the phrase.
You bet I had a problem with the smoking ban. Not only is it an affront to personal liberty, it is an insult to personal property rights. I argued publicly and in opposition to the editorial board that it would kill small bars and charitable gambling and guess what? It is. And I defy you to prove the ban has saved or will save, a single life. Show me the evidence.
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither.
As to your final paragraph, I again defy you to show me a single post of mine on this blog in which I wrote we should “limit liberties of homosexuals” or promoted anti-abortion laws. Like so many others you are falling back on shallow stereotypes of conservatives to paint me as some kind of troglodyte whose opinion on liberties is meaningless because of the other liberties I want to take away. Except, you have no idea my position on either issue, so instead you parrot the lame liberal talking point.
One might say that, in doing so, you have become the stereotype you assume I am. Ironic isn’t it?
Perhaps you could clear some things up for me Matt.
I assume from your comments that you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Yet, somehow, you are anti-choice when it comes to seat belts and property rights.
And yet, arguably, the only of the three “civil liberties” issues mentioned - abortion, seat belts, smoking bans - that infringes on another’s civil liberties is abortion.
So, how do you square support for a liberty that involves the termination of another’s, while denying liberties that do not? Certainly if abortion is okay, you can’t possibly oppose civil liberties that affect no one but the individual.
Your strange logic - that it is government’s job to save lives - is at odds with support for abortion. If you believe that it is government’s job to save lives, then you must oppose abortion. If you believe it is government’s job to stay out of personal decisions (as in the case of abortion) than you must oppose seat belt laws and smoking bans.
Yet somehow you support one and oppose others. This doesn’t seem like a consistent application of philosophy. Either you are in favor of protecting civil liberties or you are indifferent. In your case, it seems the interest lies more in defining civil liberties based on a partisan political view. In other words, you don’t seem as interested in civil liberties as you do governing based on what you think is best, civil liberties be damned.
To have the positions you do on abortion, seat belts, and smoking bans, requires a glaring inconsistency regarding civil liberties. How does one rationalize that, politically?
It’s amazing how a child can cut to the chase as easily as a babbling adult. When my son sees a motorcyclclist without a helmet, he says what an idiot. And he doesn’t even know what happens to a human head when it hits the pavement.
When he (used to) see a smoker in a restaurant, he would say. “Look, that guy is smoking, What is he thinking?” loud enough to hear. Somehow I would try to corral him, but I’m not sure why. The smokers always seem to take it in stride. They know their habit can kill them. So do the idiots who choose not to mess up their hair at the risk of splattering brain matter on the roadway (like an idiot). I understand why someone would complain about the government stepping in on things, but its fun to step back and consider how passionate people are about letting government let them be the idiots they are.
Welcome to the debate bitterweet. It just keeps getting more interesting. Perhaps I can give you an appreciation for why people are passionate about government letting them be “idiots.”
This is indeed a civil liberties issue, as is your liberty to call people whose choices you disagree with “idiots” (I counted four times).
Being an “idiot” can’t be defined by you or I. And it certainly cannot, and is not intended to be, by government.
If the motorcyclist who doesn’t wear a helmet is an idiot, a motorcyclist can’t be that much better. If the smoker is an idiot, what about people with bad diets? People who drink? If I find your comments “idiotic,” is that all I need to have them outlawed?
“Idiotic” seems to be defined as personal danger. Ultimately that definition encompasses a great many activities you might find perfectly acceptable, but someone might find idiotic.
You make it sound like there is some incredible gain to be had by not being an idiot. This statement puzzles me to no end:
The smokers always seem to take it in stride. They know their habit can kill them.
Is the promise of eternal life on the table somewhere? If it is, could someone clue me in because otherwise, we’re simply hashing out how long we think people should live, and what risks they should avoid to get to the “right” age. So, what kind of lifestyle do I need to have dictated to me in order to hit the state-approved target life span?
I smoke, and it’s definitely going to cost me in the long run, even if I quit tomorrow. I also wear a helmet when I ride, because I don’t want my brain splattered on the road. But even the safest lifestyle government can produce won’t save me from dying. In fact, it won’t save me from an endless list of possible demises; today, or any day, for the rest of my life, and yours, until it wins.
The leading cause of death is life. Why in the world would we ever want government to start legislating private matters like the quality of that life, in order to improve the quantity?
We “passionately” defend the motorcyclist’s right to go head bare, and the drivers decision to go belt-less not because we think they are smart, but because we see the reflection of our own liberties, and the ease with which they can be taken away.
Maintaining those liberties requires constant vigilance, because there is always a great many people indifferent to protecting the privacy, the speech, the right to assemble, etc., of “idiots.”
Can someone attempt to answer why PT seems to have an overly-aggressive tone in his posts. I’m fairly confident it’s not just how I read it. And don’t defend it with “passion” for the issues, because you really come off like quite the donkey’s ass.
As for your direct attack no me, in regards to my direct attack on the Republic platform (which simply does not respect the rights of homosexuals and the right to seek an abortion), you said “I defy you to prove the ban has saved one life.” Now watch how calm and collected I can be, and not abrasive and edgy (much like someone who hasn’t taken their smoke break yet, haha) as I point out that the Environmental Protection Agency lists second hand smoke as a Group A carcinogen. It causes cancer!!!!!!!!!!
Again you attack by saying I “don’t seem as interested in civil liberties as (I) do governing based on what (I) think is best, civil liberties be damned.” You also claim my opinion spawns from partisan politics eventhough I’m an independent (plug one of bittersweet’s “idiotic” slams in here). However, I form my opinion based on fact and logic, and the facts and logics as expressed by those in the medical profession suggest that second hand smoke causes cancer.
Sorry, but I don’t need cancer because of another person’s smoking habits. Kinda like how I wouldn’t want a heart attack because you’re eating McDonald’s everyday for lunch two cubicles down from me.
My request/suggestion for you PT is that you learn to utilize a gentler tone. Opinion is opinion. Disagreement is healthy.
Matt, you finished your post by assuming my definition of “hard work” would be to take rights away from gays and outlaw abortion. In other words, you make a stereotypical assumption about my positions that, at the very least makes me look like someone indifferent to the civil liberties of chosen minorities, and at worst, a bigot.
It was an unwarranted cheap shot that really had no place in the debate. Since I have never done anything to “limit” the rights of homosexuals or ban abortion, I took exception to your insinuation, much like you probably would have if I had made equally stereotypical assumptions about your politics.
If simply defending myself against those kind of “talking point” generalities makes me a “donkey’s ass” I am prepared to live with that.
Perhaps if I had made some equally ridiculous assumption like: Matt wants to kill more babies and give rights to terrorists (or something as idiotic), you would better understand. I am at least certain you would have taken exception.
And despite the fact that you never asked, I will tell you that my position on gay marriage (which I assume is what you mean by my wanting to “limit” their rights) exactly mirrors the mainstream of the Democratic Party: It is a states rights issue. And, in fact, that is also my position on abortion.
They are both issues that, constitutionally, the states should be deciding. Any state that decides to honor gay marriage or allow abortion (assuming Roe vs. Wade were rightly struck down as unconstitutional) would have my blessing, just as those that don’t allow either would.
If you don’t like people taking exception when you make baseless assumptions, then don’t make them. If you are going to suggest, completely without provocation, that I am bigoted towards homosexuals or make other generalizations based on what you think a conservative is, I am going to call you on it every time. If you want a “gentler tone” than use a gentler tone. But please, don’t take pot shots and then act all outraged when I call you on it. That’s just silly.
Now, perhaps we can get back to the actual issue.
You say the EPA’s listing of second hand smoke as a class A carcinogen is good enough for you. Are you aware the study you reference conclusions were thrown out by a federal court in 1998, due to proof of cooked data? And, even with the cooked study, the EPA was only able to give secondhand smoke a 1.19 rating, which is far lower than the 2.6 - 3.0 usually required to rate an “A.”
What I’m saying is, a totally discredited EPA study that broke all the rules and still couldn’t produce a convincing risk level isn’t exactly proof. And subsequent studies have been widely varied from no risk, to little risk, with only the rare exception (usually politically motivated) even suggesting any real risk.
Since the study you quoted was a joke, and since you offer nothing else, I have to say that you have yet to back up your assertion that the smoking ban “saves lives.” In addition, I will ask what I asked bittersweet: Is eternal life on the table here? Even in an anti-smokers wildest dreams, the smoking ban will do nothing to reverse the hard fact that everybody dies.
Later in your comment you claim I “attack” (kind of thin skinned for a person who accused me of wanting to strip rights from gays) by saying you are basing your opinions on politics rather than logic. It isn’t an attack. It is a conclusion based on earlier statements of yours. For instance: You say government should be in the business of saving lives, but you are obviously pro-choice.
Isn’t that a contradiction?
Yes, it is, and it is based more on politics than a consistent application of civil liberties. Being pro-choice is a political philosophy. Believing that government has a role in protecting us from ourselves is a political philosophy.
I am still hopeful that you can explain that contradiction. I am still hoping you can explain how you, as a pro-choicer, can believe government has no right to dictate what a person does with their body when it arguably strips another of their right to life, but support mandatory seat belts, which affect no one but the individual.
Certainly you can see your own glaring inconsistencies, can’t you?
Lastly, you say “I don’t need cancer because of another person’s smoking habits.” Well, then don’t hang around smokers. That is certainly your right, unless I missed some law mandating inhalation. Don’t go places where smoking is allowed. But there is no such thing as a constitutional right to dictate environment. If you don’t like something it is on you to avoid it, not to dictate behavior to accommodate your desires.
I object to people, like you perhaps, who are okay with others losing liberties as long as those decisions go “your way.” Someday, the powers that be might have disdain for a liberty you enjoy. It will be people like me, who are able to look beyond their own prejudices, that rush to defend your rights. Perhaps then you will have a deeper appreciation for my position.
Ah finally, the most honest statement from PT yet. “I object to people.”
If you look carefully, I never supported a seat belt law, and in fact suggested that the car manufacturers are doing an annoyingly good job of enforcing seat belt use as is. So get over yourself with this idea of a pro-choice contradiction.
And let me make a few quick points:
1) You used the term “chosen minority” to refer to gays and lesbians, and I think I have several gay friends who would be outraged by that statement.
2) To say your position on gay marriage is whatever the state decides it should be, is hiding the facts. Instead, just state whether or not you support gay marriage in Minnesota.
3) Pro-choice is more than stripping a fetus of its right to live. It gives women the right to choose how they want to manage their reproductive organs. It also says that woman can have a child if they want to, perhaps you’re unaware of forced abortions being common place in U.S. history.
4) I don’t hang around smokers, but I do go out to dinner and have a beer or two with friends while watching the big game on a bars giant plasma TV. And much like your argument on gay marriage, smoking bans are state issues. Our state has voted, and smokers are not wanted in restaurants and bars. Perhaps as a smoker, or a “chosen minority, you can accept that.
And lastly, and most importantly…
5) I have an appreciation for your position. And I do not object to you for your opinion, even if you “object to people” like me.
Ok Matt. I’ll try to address this.
1) Last time I checked, homosexuals were a minority of the populace. To suggest that calling a minority a “minority” is somehow offensive seems kind of Orwellian.
2)On gay marriage, my personal opinion is of no consequence to the political issue. Whether I like it or support it is meaningless. Frankly, as a heterosexual, I don’t dare pretend I even understand it. What I do know and understand is self-governance. And, if people desire to allow it, or not allow it, I put my faith in their good judgment.
3) I understand what abortion is. But it is also perhaps the only “civil liberty” in America that has an affect on anothers’ civil liberties. That is simply a fact we should all be able to acknowledge.
4) I followed the issue pretty closely, and I don’t recall the voters ever casting a ballot on the smoking ban. Secondly, gay marriage and smoking bans are nothing alike. One is a public matter (of government recognition), the other is a private matter. Since when do we take votes on how a private individual can lawfully operate a private business located on private property? The fact that so few are able to distinguish the difference between public and private is an indictment of the value of civics taught in our public schools.
5) Ooooo-kay.
While you didn’t express specific support for the seat belt law, you did take it upon yourself to poke fun at those who don’t, comparing them to opponents of the smoking ban. You also expressed support for regulations like the ban that “save lives.” Sounds like the official Matt seal of approval to me.
Have a good weekend, Matt. Thanks for playing.
“Thanks for playing” implies this is a game.
In point #1, you failed to acknowledge your use of the word “chosen.” You said “chosen minority,” and that’s as offensive as it gets.
Nothing needs the Matt seal of approval other than your apology for calling gays and lesbians a “chosen minority.” Being gay is not a choice for them, it is who they are!
I’ll score Mr. Perkins with the clear victory on that round. PT, you used the term “chosen minority,” not just “minority,” which suggests that homosexuals get up one morning and decide to join the minority. Ridiculous.
Then there’s this: “(Abortion) is the only civil liberty in America that has an affect on another’s civil liberties. That is simply a fact we should all be able to acknowledge.”
No, simply NOT a fact. The anti-abortion crowd begins their argument with an astounding leap that a fetus, fully dependent on gestation, is the same thing as a living child. A majority of Americans don’t buy that logic. Amazingly, I’ve yet to see a vocal “pro-lifer” sit down and blow out candles on the anniversary of the day they were conceived.
Moreover, there are all kinds of liberties that directly impact others’ civil liberties. All a matter of degree, some crucial, some just not a big deal. And for every liberty supposedly stomped on by a liberal, I can name one stomped on by a conservative.
It’s been an hour… I’m still waiting for PTs apology.
Wow, how did Seatbelts turn into Abortion and Homosexuality?!
Matt - Nanny State has admittedly become a cliche, but it’s used so much because it’s an accurate description for so much that gov’t does.
I fully acknowledge that seatbelt use saves lives, but with extraordinarily rare exceptions seatbelt use does NOT save anyone’s life other than the belt user - i.e “innocent bystanders” really aren’t kept safer by my seatbelt use. So a Primary Seatbelt law is gov’t regulating my personal behavior solely (essentially) for my personal safety. I’m not legally allowed to take the personal risk even if I choose, because it’s for my own good. There are extraordinarily rare examples where seatbelt use had some secondary benefit to someone other than the user, but they are very rare and do not rise to the level of creating a “compelling public interest” which overrides the Individual Liberty. As for the cost savings - let insurance charge higher rates. Problem solved.
This is a cliched analogy, but I use it because it’s dead on : Eating triple cheeseburgers and a large order of fries for lunch and dinner every day - that would be stupid and risky for pretty much only the eater (with some extraordinarily rare exceptions). Paying more for life insurance and dying prematurely of a heart attack, diabetes or high blood pressure is obviously worth it to many Americans; but why would we ask gov’t to regulate our personal behaviour on that level? To save lives? to save money? The same arguments apply, but we haven’t (YET!) seriously considered gov’t regulating personal dietary behaviors. Most of us would find that an offensive proposal, but the same arguments apply. Many, many, many more people die each year; and much, much, much more money is wasted each year because of bad lifestyle habits. Seatbelt use is just a blip compared to diet and lifestyle, which are by far the largest drivers of health costs and premature death in this country. Why not regulate this personal Liberty too? We absolutely would save millions of lives, and billions of dollars.
In some ways gov’t has actually started to try - just look at the recent trans-fat bans in some cities. This is why many people get passionate about issues of individual liberty: we are pushing back against the inertia of government:
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
- Thomas Jefferson
He was so dead on with that one. So we push back, for the sake of Liberty…
I missed this comment by H Burke:
“The anti-abortion crowd begins their argument with an astounding leap that a fetus, fully dependent on gestation, is the same thing as a living child. A majority of Americans don’t buy that logic. Amazingly, I’ve yet to see a vocal “pro-lifer”