Re: Personal safety laws
- From: Aaron <aaron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:03:47 -0400
Bama Brian wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
>> I got into a pretty heated debate with my libertarian friend last night
>> regarding what I call "personal safety laws." These are laws designed to
>> protect people from harm, e.g. seatbelt laws, helmet laws, speed limits,
>> jaywalking laws, etc.
>>
>> Please allow me to state my opinion. It is my belief that laws conceived
>> to protect an individual from his or her own irresponsible behavior, in
>> all cases that do not involve the harm of third parties, should be
>> abolished. A law requiring that seatbelts be worn is one such law
>> because it protects the driver and their passengers from harm should an
>> unfortunate accident occur, yet not abiding by this law does not endager
>> anyone except he or she who disobeys it.
>>
>> Everyone should wear a seatbelt, it is proved to increase your safety in
>> the event of an accident. But the government should not have to enforce
>> this obvious fact, nor should the government require that seatbelts be
>> installed in cars. If you fear for your personal safety, buy a car with
>> a seatbelt and wear it. I would.
>>
>> My friend and I disagreed, however, on the point of drunk driving laws.
>> It is my belief that legislation seeking to prevent irresponsible
>> behavior that endagers others in a way that is not avoidable, outright,
>> by the endangered parties, ought not be abolished. Not every driver on
>> the road can be expected to simply "avoid" the reckless driving of a
>> person under the influence of alcohol and so it behooves the local
>> authorities to prevent this reckless behavior to prevent loss of life.
>
> Out in California, some years back, a sixteen year old driver killed
> four bicyclists when she was looking for a tape in the back seat of the
> car she was driving.
>
> Point is, it is not possible to legislate against the tired/drunk/legal
> drug reaction/diabetic coma/inattentive drivers and still keep this a
> free country. It is only possible to pass laws which concern the
> results of their actions; i.e., have an accident, pay the penalties.
>
> Followed to the extreme, you get scenarios where a cowboy is arrested
> for drunken riding, even though his horse knows the way home, where a
> woman is arrested for drunken driving while riding as a passenger in a
> taxi. You get scenarios where the cops go into bars and arrest people
> for getting drunk in public, although none had yet left the bars. All
> three of the above scenarios are true and have happened, BTW.
>
> Nanny-state government laws are direct denials of freedom. They are
> straight out of Orwell's "1984" where people are published for
> "thoughtcrimes", IOW for what someone _thinks_ someone else may do, and
> not for what they've done.
>
The world is much more of a gray area than "nanny-state" or "no
nanny-state." There is such a thing as "compromise" and "balance" in
laws as in all things.
As the argument goes, if I walk into a Kindergarten classroom and empty
the entire magazine of a Glock 16 without looking, but I hit not a soul,
should I not be punished? Is this not an instance of bad behavior to be
made an example of?
>> My friend, however, asserts his opinion that the world be a free-for-all
>> in which it is the responsibility of every individual to secure their
>> own safety in whatever fashion they deem appropriate from any and all
>> dangers posed by others, without the intervention of law.
>>
>> Playing Devil's advocate, he then asked me if I thought the same
>> punishments assessed for driving under the influence of alcohol ought
>> apply to driving tired (to the point where you may be pulled over for
>> erratic behavior in the same way a DWI is assessed). My answer was Yes,
>> there should be lawful punishments executed upon people who act in a way
>> that endangers others so as to prevent that eventuality.
>
> You can only "prevent" all dangers to others by requiring that all
> people wear chains and be escorted to and from whatever activities the
> state deems to be safe. But all human activity is inherently unsafe;
> the universe is an uncaring, hostile place, so it is simply not possible
> to make laws which will keep us all "safe".
>
I am not saying that *all* dangers can ever be prevented, nor that
they should.
> Benjamin Franklin said it, back in 1755: "Those who would give up
> essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve
> neither Liberty nor Safety."
I agree.
I don't think that penalizing people who are acting in an obviously
dangerous way in public constitutes the surrender of "essential
liberty."
>
> You'll also find this quote, slightly changed, on a plaque in the
> pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.
>
>> I am very interested to hear the opinions of this group on all of these
>> points.
>
> Your buddy's right.
>
> Cheers,
> Bama Brian
> Libertarian
>
>>
--
Aaron
"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems
good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the
rest." -- John Stuart Mill
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Personal safety laws
- From: Bama Brian
- Re: Personal safety laws
- References:
- Personal safety laws
- From: Aaron
- Re: Personal safety laws
- From: Bama Brian
- Personal safety laws
- Prev by Date: Re: Personal safety laws
- Next by Date: Re: Personal safety laws
- Previous by thread: Re: Personal safety laws
- Next by thread: Re: Personal safety laws
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
