Car Safety Belt Laws
- Thread starter Danoff
- 227 comments
- 6,736 views
- 10,832
I think baby car seat laws are unconstitutional. If you're stupid enough to not secure your baby it deserves to die. If it's forced to suffer under your incompetent care after artificially surviving an accident, it only gives you opportunity to kill it another, possibly more heinous, way. It's just natural selection, survival of the fittest.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
No, here I disagree with you as well.
The thing is, the baby has no control over its situation. It cannot make the smart or dumb choice about whether it wants to be buckled up or not. So really, it isn't natural selection, because it may be a highly intelligent infant that is helpless to influence its stupid parents.
Child and infant seatbelt laws should remain as they are or be made stiffer (in enforcement, anyway), but adult seatbelt laws should be as I described above.
Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
My insurance rate have the potential to go up every time someone is seriously injured because they didnt wear a seat belt,.... I think it should be law, but I dont think a cop should be able to pull you over for it (like they can here in Mich) If he pulls you over for something legitimate, and your not wearing it, you deserve a fine.
So, if you get pulled over, you put your belt on, thus rendering the law useless?
The mistaken assumption here is that human beings are rational creatures. We're not - much as we like to think we are. People are stupid in some areas, smart in others. I remember a fellow who came out from the US to work with the company I was working for a couple of years ago who flat out refused to wear a seatbelt, because in the 50's he rolled the car he was driving and was thrown clear, and the police told him if he'd been wearing a belt he'd have been killed. I explained the physics of getting a European spec airbag in the face when unrestrained, but to no avail. I wouldn't call this guy an idiot - he just had this fixation in his head.
I think they should be compulsory - I regard the fine for something like this as a form of voluntary taxation - if you're dim enough not to wear it, pay the fine. At least the state's making some money off you - until you face-plant your windscreen, or get a deploying airbag to your unrestrained melon.
Not if I have to pay to clean him up.
I contend there is a greater harm to society from people not wearing seat belts than there is from forcing them to wear them. In the Australian state of Victoria the road toll fell over 20% (around 200 people) the year they were made compulsory.
It's all very well taking the Darwinian view, but I firmly believe that a government would be lax in its duties if it allowed such an easily preventable cause of death continue.
In the US example, you can imagine the difference in figures - your road toll is around 40,000 people, right - you're talking potentially 8-10,000 people here. If there was a disease or a faulty product causing that many deaths, could you imagine the uproar?
I contend that if 8000 to 10000 people are involved, then yes, it is the Government's duty to protect people from themselves. It is the Govt's role to run and protect its society - given the magnitude of the problem, it would be negligent in its duty if it didn't.
Imagine if an employer had some workpractice that killed a similar proportion of people that could easily be remedied - they'd be crucified in the courts.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I have to disagree with a lot of the statements made above.
1) It is the government's role to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals - including their right to endanger themselves if they so choose. Of course, part of protecting the individual citizens comes down to protecting them from being endangered by other citizens... but not from themselves.
2) Your employer analogy is incorrect - because the people failing to wear seatbelts do so of their own free will. Imagine an employer that provided adequate, comfortable easy to use safety equipment free to its employees. Should that employer be "crucified" if the employees decided not to take advangtage of that safety equipment? No. Would they be? Probably. Like you said, society isn't rational, despite the fact that rationality is our only strength as human beings.
- 10,832
But it's an arbitrary line to draw. People like to throw around "survival of the fittest," the conservative perspective of seeing society as some magical settling of dust that will inevitably work itself out for the best no matter what we do. If people don't want to wear their seatbelt, fine. Then they die in an accident and loose their chance to pass along their stupid genes to another doomed generation. How is it different for their children? If they are stupid enough to not put their children in a baby seat can we not also infer that their stupid genes have been passed on to these unfastened children? Can we not also infer that their absence from the world could only serve as a future blessing to all of the fit people who wear seatbelts and in other ways act sensibly? Surely it's not merely because children are cute and we're more prone to pity for them.
I'm reminded of something I want to write here, even though it'll make my post very long...
I watched a National Geographic show Saturday morning. It was about hippopotomuses* that live in a spring in Kenya. It was a great show and I learned a lot about Hippos. Of course a baby Hippo was born and, hippos being the second most dangerous animal in Africa, after humans, the mother seperated herself from the group to give birth and get her baby on its feet. After a while she returned to the group with her baby and things went horribly wrong. A male Hippo cornered the baby and killed it rather brutally. Of course the show made you feel attached to the baby, and showed how cute and helpless it was. So when the the time came to watch it get crushed in the jaws of a full grown male the dramatic effect took its full toll and I was horrified, sitting in a rocking chair holding my own baby looking around for the remote. I changed the channel before it was over and tried to think about something else (like Motor Trend TV). I spent the rest of the day periodically reconciling what bothered me so much about the death of the baby. We all know the world is a tough place and bad things happen to babies every day; this has always been the case. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. The fact that babies are cute doesn't exempt them from the incompetence of thier unfit parents. The mother hippo failed to protect her baby. The male hippo acted in a way totally normal for a male hippo. This is all one small part of the struggle for survival. Obviously this hippo's mothering abilities were lacking and her baby was selected out for it. I told myself that hippos have been around for millions of years and are doing fine despite the death of babies; in fact, they must be better off, as a species, because of it. It's a perspective that is immune to cuteness or emotion. The gene pool doesn't care if I like it or not, although it may somehow, so-far, favor me as I am still here and have passed my genes on. If hippos had government to protect the baby would it be better off in the care of its incompetent mother? Would that merely be an engineered society full of atificially prolonged lives that if left alone would have ended long ago? And would that be bad?
This relates to the post and thread in that we draw the line around what is okay to require based on arbitrary things like emotions and pity and cuteness while in the same breath, yet between the lines, we say that it shouldn't matter. If we can make stupid parents put their kids in car seats we can make them wear seatbelts themselves using the same argument. There is no sense in making the distinction. Babies or adults, they all get selected out if need be and the species is better of as a whole because of it. The fact that it hurts our feelings couldn't matter less.
I wear my seatbelt about one third of the time. My son never goes in the car without being securely fastened in his car seat.
* Looking to the non-human world for natural allegories is a useful tool, for me. In it I see the basic movements of Life minus the complications of human existence. Once something essential has been apprehended, the abstract layers of humanity can put back in place and seen in the more accurate context of the Life that every cell on earth is subject to. All law and morality are derived from instinct.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,113
- Mile High City
You make some interesting points. But I wasnt drawing the line at babies because theyre cute. And I dont think the whole natural selection thing applies to human beings anyway, because were de-evolving ourselves. As our medical technology increases, the chances of bad genes not getting spread is less and less likely.
I happen to think babies are pretty ugly. They dont get cute until theyre like 2 IMHO.
At fundamental issue is whether the government should protect people from themselves. Children cannot be held fully accountable for their decisions. Babies definitely cannot be held accountable for their decisions. So we have to protect children from themselves to a certain degree. That is why we restrict their right to buy alcohol, to drive, and to choose whether to put on their seatbelt, up to a certain age.
I think natural selection doesnt even really enter the picture in a civilized society. I would say that we do need an economic system that takes in to account our basic instincts, but legally we should be protected from each other.
I mean, if you buy a gun and go out and shoot someone, you might argue that they were obviously less fit than you because they didnt do it first. They werent smart enough to prepare for that.
Children should be protected from their parents. Abusive, neglectful parents should be held accountable.
However, adults (and when children become adults is a tough line to draw, but its not arbitrary) should be held accountable for their own actions and should be free to fail.
I happen to think babies are pretty ugly. They dont get cute until theyre like 2 IMHO.
At fundamental issue is whether the government should protect people from themselves. Children cannot be held fully accountable for their decisions. Babies definitely cannot be held accountable for their decisions. So we have to protect children from themselves to a certain degree. That is why we restrict their right to buy alcohol, to drive, and to choose whether to put on their seatbelt, up to a certain age.
I think natural selection doesnt even really enter the picture in a civilized society. I would say that we do need an economic system that takes in to account our basic instincts, but legally we should be protected from each other.
I mean, if you buy a gun and go out and shoot someone, you might argue that they were obviously less fit than you because they didnt do it first. They werent smart enough to prepare for that.
Children should be protected from their parents. Abusive, neglectful parents should be held accountable.
However, adults (and when children become adults is a tough line to draw, but its not arbitrary) should be held accountable for their own actions and should be free to fail.
- 2,732
Dude, have you seen The Matrix? If so, do you believe in the theory stated in there that Humans are a virus? It's scary, but it's true.... With the exception of some tribes before the Europeans came over to America or to Africa, we've always been destructive and destroying everything in our path past the point of repair....
- 10,832
It's a cynical perspective. If you wanted to take the time you could find similarities between humans and anything at all. That's what we do, justify the world when it's like us, or something we understand. We understand viruses.
The funny thing about viruses is that there is debate over whether they are alive. They certainly are not alive in the same sense that mammals are.
It's a great dramatic tool, though, for a movie. And yes, I've seen The Matrix a few times and it's definitely one of my favorites.
The viral aspects of humanity are not necessarily due to the fact that we are humans, but rather the particular mode in which we are humans, of which only a few have been lived, out of an infinite array. The mode you referred to, the European mode, is, more essentially, the Christian mode. And it is thouroughly viral. Every law, every moral, every single norm in our society is derived from and rooted in the Judeo Christian tradition. It has been this way for almost two thousand years, and the infection has just about completely overtaken the organism: Life. The end result of this is the consumation of the illness. America is the last phase, and the viral Christian tradition is at it's critical onset.
This is why I go back to non-human (as much as possible) expressions of Life in hopes of finding something essential about it: Life minus consciousness (which, ironically, requires consciousness). When Life's instinct to live is observed, felt, understood... only then can the sundry layers of consciousness be put back in place, possibly rearranged, thinned out. Then you get to see just how superflouous and contradictory our greatest values really are. You understand that Life is not capital, not technology, not government, or politics, or nationalities. An American can know this as easily as a Frenchman. And no war has ever been fought over it, yet. This perspective has, over the past eight years or so, become my religion, for lack of a better word. That Life is all there is, always, and everything else is subordinate to it, even (especially) the things that claim to be able to tell us what Life is; indeed, they all should be viewed with the greatest suspicion and scrutiny. Life does not have laws. It is justice, pure and simple. It cannot be unjust; but we can in our attempts to make it so. It is like a river down a mountain: it will find the way, and that is it's only rule. We come along later and name the ways and think we can decide if it is good or bad. But this, too, is only Life.
So let them make seatbelt laws and all the laws they want. We follow laws to avoid punishment. We wear seatblets to stay alive.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,113
- Mile High City
No.
I do not want to let "them" make all the laws that they want. I don't even want to let some of the laws that have been made stand. Maybe the law has a good reason, maybe the outcome is positive overall, but that doesn't mean that it is justified, fair, and right.
Is it not possible for a rule to have a positive outcome overall - to benefit everyone, and yet.... to be unfair?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,113
- Mile High City
The seatbelt case isn't even that. It's a law that benefits almost everyone (I claim that it does not benefit people who don't want to wear theirs at the risk of their own lives) and is applied unevenly (not to motorcycles, harsher enforcement than others at different times and places), aaaannnnnddd isn't necessary or right when applied to adults.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
You know, milefile, not to snipe at your posts or anything, but you play the "principle/expediency" thing whichever way suits you best. Pick one: do things have a concrete principal behind them, or is everything relative to what works at the moment?
- 10,832
Simple. The moment is the concrete principle.
From moment can be derived "necessity," which is a less esoteric way of saying the same thing.
That is the standard by which all things are evaluated. And it is very simple.
I have elaborated this perspective all over this site at different times and for different reasons, and I'm not inclined to go into any more detail at the moment.
Suffice it to say that the only perspective capable of making any sound evaluation of anything is a panoramic one, one that sees the thing at hand from as many perspectives as possible, and chooses to use the one that is most beneficial and best suits the principle of necessity. To do this one must at least understand and be able to argue for or against everthing else in the process. I already know it looks indecisive to impatient, rash, intellectually restrained and uptight individuals (ones who like to tout their "philosophies") and does not fit into the liberal/conservative dichotomy. And that's what's so liberating about it. Being confronted like you have just confronted me confirms my success at thinking beyond the circle-jerk of American politics, even if counterparts are few and far between. I may even like it better that way.
You are, or are at least trying to be, rooted into one of many possible "principles" derived from necessity, and yet necessity has somehow become inconvenient to you. And you unnaturally insist that they remain valid long past their usefullness. And of course you know that this is the best way to be, and any other way is inconsistent, flaky, contradictory.
From moment can be derived "necessity," which is a less esoteric way of saying the same thing.
That is the standard by which all things are evaluated. And it is very simple.
I have elaborated this perspective all over this site at different times and for different reasons, and I'm not inclined to go into any more detail at the moment.
Suffice it to say that the only perspective capable of making any sound evaluation of anything is a panoramic one, one that sees the thing at hand from as many perspectives as possible, and chooses to use the one that is most beneficial and best suits the principle of necessity. To do this one must at least understand and be able to argue for or against everthing else in the process. I already know it looks indecisive to impatient, rash, intellectually restrained and uptight individuals (ones who like to tout their "philosophies") and does not fit into the liberal/conservative dichotomy. And that's what's so liberating about it. Being confronted like you have just confronted me confirms my success at thinking beyond the circle-jerk of American politics, even if counterparts are few and far between. I may even like it better that way.
You are, or are at least trying to be, rooted into one of many possible "principles" derived from necessity, and yet necessity has somehow become inconvenient to you. And you unnaturally insist that they remain valid long past their usefullness. And of course you know that this is the best way to be, and any other way is inconsistent, flaky, contradictory.
- 10,832
When in doubt, resort to thinly vieled insults.
No danoff, I am not "suggesting." I am saying unequivocally that there are no "universal principles" as you understand them. There is one standard of evaluation that everything is subject to, including this miscellany of so-called "universals" that you seem to value so highly. That value is necessity.
Universals are consolations.
Do you know what necessity is? Can you comprehend it in the context of history?
Don't answer. I already know you can't.
I also already know it makes you feel secure to imply that what I am saying is all just hot air. To you it is. And that's okay with me. In fact, it is probably necessary and even beneficial.
Looking forward to your clever reply.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,113
- Mile High City
Milefile:
It wont be clever. Im not playing games here, or trying to trick anyone. Im not trying to get away with anything. Im not toying around with any of this. I honestly believe the things Im saying here.
I dont say any of this for the sake of being different, or getting people upset.
There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist. Rand
I am not a fashionable non-conformist.
I have to disagree (but you knew I would). Universal truths are the only thing that allows people to live together in a civilized manner. Those basic truths are what founded this country and allow us to have laws and function as a nation.
I dont think there is a person on this planet who doesnt know what necessity is. In the context here it is what is required to avoid death. The dictionary describes it as what is indispensable. Necessity is something that we come into contact with relatively few times in our lives, but we all know what its about.
Necessity is dangerous. For even the most slightly uncivilized human being it represents a point past all rational thought.
This has nothing to do with how I feel. It has everything to do with how we think. You would do better to stop assuming things about me and deal with the issues and facts at hand.
Im surprised you admit to thinking this. I guess I should have known that you would, weve touched on this subject before and you were heading in this direction. I told you then that I do not subscribe to the idea that principles are malleable, and I maintain that position, as you expected. What you have said here is so fundamentally wrong, its hard to know where to begin.
To say that value is necessity, and that all things should be evaluated with respect to necessity is to say that nothing is worth dying for.
To that you might say that the thing worth dying for is the greater necessity of the population.
I would claim that there are principles (which youve said dont exist in your world) that are worth entire populations dying for. When we go to war, do we ever stop to say: if this is going to kill the majority of us, we dont think its worth it.
What about freedom? Is that a necessity? No!!! Is it worth dying for? Yes!!! Is it a basic hard fundamental principle that should be held to? Yes.
What about justice?
What about love? Isnt that unnecessary? People go their entire lives without love, so its clearly unnecessary. Some would say it's worth everything in the face of necessity.
What about your dreams and aspirations? Isnt that something worth risking everything for? Are they necessary? No. Should people be willing to risk things that are necessary for them? I am.
Maybe Im missing the point. Ill try from another angle.
If one person is without food and is near death, while another person owns (rightfully) food and is not near death. Would the first person be justified in taking the second persons food because it is a necessity for him and only a luxury for the second person?
Hell no. Its not his. It belongs to the first person. No one is ever justified in taking the possessions of another person if no prior injustice has been committed by that person. You have to consider what was given up for those possessions . time the most precious thing we have.
Fundamental truths that apply in the face of necessity. If that's not true, what are we living for?
Am I missing your point?
It wont be clever. Im not playing games here, or trying to trick anyone. Im not trying to get away with anything. Im not toying around with any of this. I honestly believe the things Im saying here.
I dont say any of this for the sake of being different, or getting people upset.
There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist. Rand
I am not a fashionable non-conformist.
I have to disagree (but you knew I would). Universal truths are the only thing that allows people to live together in a civilized manner. Those basic truths are what founded this country and allow us to have laws and function as a nation.
I dont think there is a person on this planet who doesnt know what necessity is. In the context here it is what is required to avoid death. The dictionary describes it as what is indispensable. Necessity is something that we come into contact with relatively few times in our lives, but we all know what its about.
Necessity is dangerous. For even the most slightly uncivilized human being it represents a point past all rational thought.
This has nothing to do with how I feel. It has everything to do with how we think. You would do better to stop assuming things about me and deal with the issues and facts at hand.
Im surprised you admit to thinking this. I guess I should have known that you would, weve touched on this subject before and you were heading in this direction. I told you then that I do not subscribe to the idea that principles are malleable, and I maintain that position, as you expected. What you have said here is so fundamentally wrong, its hard to know where to begin.
To say that value is necessity, and that all things should be evaluated with respect to necessity is to say that nothing is worth dying for.
To that you might say that the thing worth dying for is the greater necessity of the population.
I would claim that there are principles (which youve said dont exist in your world) that are worth entire populations dying for. When we go to war, do we ever stop to say: if this is going to kill the majority of us, we dont think its worth it.
What about freedom? Is that a necessity? No!!! Is it worth dying for? Yes!!! Is it a basic hard fundamental principle that should be held to? Yes.
What about justice?
What about love? Isnt that unnecessary? People go their entire lives without love, so its clearly unnecessary. Some would say it's worth everything in the face of necessity.
What about your dreams and aspirations? Isnt that something worth risking everything for? Are they necessary? No. Should people be willing to risk things that are necessary for them? I am.
Maybe Im missing the point. Ill try from another angle.
If one person is without food and is near death, while another person owns (rightfully) food and is not near death. Would the first person be justified in taking the second persons food because it is a necessity for him and only a luxury for the second person?
Hell no. Its not his. It belongs to the first person. No one is ever justified in taking the possessions of another person if no prior injustice has been committed by that person. You have to consider what was given up for those possessions . time the most precious thing we have.
Fundamental truths that apply in the face of necessity. If that's not true, what are we living for?
Am I missing your point?
Similar threads
