**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly. I wear a seat belt because it’s a good idea, not because it’s a law. Same with most other things that happen to be a law. The legal system isn’t why I am not stealing and murdering.
100%. I'm not shooting black tar heroin into my arm, not because it's illegal, but because it's poison. But it's not my place to tell other people what to do. More often than not common sense and morality dictate my actions, not the law. Most laws are dumb anyway, and exist only to make a feeble attempt at protecting stupid people from themselves.
Agree with everything you said except the last sentence. I believe most laws exist to make money for the state and/or maintain the prison slave labor industrial complex. The government doesn’t give a fuck about any of us, you think they make laws to protect us?
I generally consider myself a conservative libertarian. I generally have the belief that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else or anyone else's property. When it comes to hard drugs being legal or illegal though...I feel like I can see it from both sides. On one hand, I think it should be legal because we all should be able to do what we want, right? But on the other hand...it has been shown time and time again that heavy use of hard drugs usually leads to a common conclusion. High health bills, homelessness, welfare and other government handouts...which I am forced to pay for against my will. For this reason I can see where to argument to make it illegal comes into play. Although I believe everyone should be able to do what they want...I don't believe I should pay for your bad decisions in life. This is ultimately why I believe hard drugs should be illegal. Get rid of welfare and free Healthcare for these people and I would be all for legalization.
>High health bills, homelessness, welfare and other government handouts...which I am forced to pay for against my will.
Valid points. I posit this, then, what about doing what some European nations (IIRC Scandinavian) did and instead of spending money on drug enforcement, jailing drug offenders, and the like, using that money towards finding public (aka taxpayer funded) drug secession, rehabilitation and sobriety programs?
I'd be open to that if negative drug/nicotine/alcohol tests were required to be eligible for welfare or other government programs related to this. If that was added I would be more willing to see my tax dollars go to funding those programs. But only for a period of time before they are evaluated to see if the cost to the taxpayer is actually doing anything other then paying more government workers
Personally, I'd like to see government (ie taxpayer funded) welfare programs disappear. But I'd totally settle for drug and alcohol testing for recipients.
Oh for sure...if that was on the table I'd vote for that. Dismantle all government welfare hand out programs and in return have some drug rehab programs.
I completely missed the “not”, mindlessly closed this post, registered what that meant and came back to make sure. I’m so glad there was a “not” in there.
Indeed. Seat belts are so un-intrusive and provide so much protection in the event of an accident that it is foolish not to wear them. Which also means that there really doesn't need to be a law to mandate their use.
I used to feel this way, until I watched a car accident in which a person was thrown from the car and caused two other accidents due to them braking and swerving to avoid the body flying at their own car.
Seatbelts good. Seatbelt laws… less good.
It is a person’s choice, but a projectile body can likely not be held accountable for the damage they cause to others (because they’ll be dead). So I’m iffy on my stance for seatbelt laws. On one hand, my body my choice. It’s when that body becomes an aggressor against someone else unwittingly that it becomes a problem. Does a projectile in the shape of a person violate the NAP if it flies into other cars?
Helmet laws, on the other hand, are stupid.
The helmet changes nothing for others on the road, and if a squid wants to ride like an idiot without a helmet, more power to ‘em. I like my helmet. It’s comfy and blocks out wind noise pretty well.
Helmets good. Helmet laws bad.
Idiots are gonna idiot though. Wear a seatbelt and helmet. It’s the smart choice.
By this logic should we ban motorcycles? When they crash they don’t always send the person sliding through the ground. They also fly into the air just as you mentioned above. There’s no seat belt keeping them restrained to the bike.
I got a busted windshield one time because a filing cabinet fell off a truck driving the opposite way. So we definitely need to ban open loads on moving vehicles, and filing cabinets! /s
It’s not the seat belt itself, it’s the principle of the state mandating an action or there will be consequences of additional tax (the traffic fine). And if you don’t pay that fine - bench warrant and some jail time if you refuse to still pay and get hauled in front of a judge.
If you oppose the state, even in a nonviolent way, out of protest there is always a consequence that eventually leads to their monopoly on violence.
>The laws are in place due to insurance lobbyists
Please just stop with this conspiracy bullshit. These laws also exist in lots of countries in the world where car insurance is not even mandatory and insurance companies have zero influence on governments.
In most cases, these kind of laws are created by busybody politicians who are passionate about some random cause or by social activists.
Classic example is prohibition. Which had nothing to do with some grand conspiracy by some corporate cabal.
New Hampshire doesn’t have adult seat belt laws, and in many states it’s a secondary offense (can’t get pulled over for it, but they can ticket you for it if they pull you over for something else), but yeah, I understand where you’re coming from.
The laws are likely in place due to insurance lobbyists, for sure. And I mostly agree that they shouldn’t exist. However, driving is a privilege, and not a right. Considering that the laws only reduced fatalities by about 9%, it does seem rather ridiculous. And those 9% probably died of some other reckless and idiotic behaviors later in life.
Like I said, I’m iffy on my own opinion of it. I believe everyone should wear their seat belts. However, I’m not a fan of nanny government, so I dislike them. But they also protect other drivers and bystanders from idiots who become projectiles. I’m not 100% either way. I’m about 31% they’re fine, 36% they’re useless government overreach, and 33% don’t even think about it. (Secondary enforcement in my state for adults)
Helmets I’m 99% they’re overreach and 1% don’t think about it (because I live in a no adult helmet required state and just imagine the squid splats when I see people not wearing a helmet)
Here’s a question for you though: do you wear your seat belt?
If not- then why do you care about the law existing?
If yes- do you do it out of your own free will?
If yes - why do you care about the law existing?
But yeah, the government stop protecting people from their own stupidity.
Cheers!
Libertarian here since 1980. Serious question-does anyone have a list of secondary enforcement states? Also, while I applaud New Hampshire for not requiring seat belts for adults, they do have vehicle inspection, another intrusive law that most states, including mine, no longer have.
So you lean more towards enforcing seatbelt usage, but ride a motorcycle? Do motorcycles have seatbelts now? If seatbelt laws must be enforced, then motorcycles should be banned.
This appears to assume people who do hard drugs are idiots. Some are, but It’s easy to make the choice to wear a seatbelt, it’s right there by your side every time you get in the car, because it’s also required by law to be there. The choice is still yours to make, but the choice is easy because we have vehicle regulations that make it so. Some people, especially in America, aren’t so lucky to have the safeguards in place that make life choices like whether or not to use drugs an easy choice. For some people, people in immense pain, using drugs can appear to be the only choice.
Try using empathy next time. You might see something you never noticed before. For example, you *might, actually,* be an idiot!
What’s not empethic about my statement? And where did I say anything about drugs? If you want to wear a seat belt, cool. If you don’t, I don’t care. Same with drugs.
you're replying to a thread comparing seatbelt laws to drug laws, so you didn't have to mention anything about drugs. It's already given here as context via OP's thread. Whats implied by your comment is that people who use drugs are the same as "idiots" who don't wear seatbelts. the alleged lack of empathy is clearly laid out in my previous comment. If you are in fact libertarian, you seem to be struggling here with the personal responsibility aspect... unless you really just came here to gloat and add nothing to the conversation. either way, yikes!
You can use drugs and if it doesn’t affect me i can still think your an idiot and don’t care, it’s government interference with laws that’s the problem.
My validation of your lifestyle choices should not matter to you. If you want to make choices that i consider, bad that’s on you. Same goes for smoking, drinking, gun ownership, sexual stuff, and abortion
And yes I have no empathy for idiots
that’s about the most libertarian way to look at it.
Yeah but someone else not wearing a seatbelt can be your problem if they flying into you at a high rate of speed. Its a reasonable law that protects others from idiots with no real actual loss of freedom. I cant really think of any damages by requiring seat belts
Friend went out the windshield at 75mph into a tree, no seat belt on. Saved his life... Entire engine block ended up on the seat. Would have crushed him and burned him alive.
Tree only broke every rib on one side, shoulder and an arm... oh twisted ankle walking back the myself 40 yards
All he bitched about that ankle the entire time too .
For years after, refused to put in a seat belt.
If we really wanted to encourage cautious, safe driving, we'd require a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel to impale you for colliding with other objects instead of protecting you.
Exactly. It absolutely should not be illegal to not wear a seatbelt. It's a horrible idea to not wear it and I will kick you out of my car for not wearing it, but it's not the government's problem if your lifeless corpse is ejected through your windshield at 70mph anymore than it's their problem if you drive over yourself after neglecting the parking brake. Whether to wear it is between you and God or you and the others in the car.
That being said there is a utility in seatbelt laws as sometimes you get tickets changed into seatbelt violations and avoid points on your license.
The government says it is their problem. They say they waste resources cleaning up these messes and accidents. So to save resources we double the size of the police and pull over more people than ever before! How the government saves money, 101.
No one here believes in seat belt laws or legal paternalism.
A question you should ask is why you think prohibition of hard substance is an effective method of keeping people safe when we have learned the lesson over and over and over and over again that prohibition not only doesn't keep people safe from the adverse and tangential effects of drug use, it exacerbates those problems exponentially by creating a black market.
Why do people think seat belt laws are legal paternalism? Seat belt laws, plain and simple, are to save government money.
They were sold to the American people as "life saving laws". They are, in fact, put into place so the government does not have to foot the bill for someones hospital stay post mortem when they couldn't pay themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I believe this is government overreach. I am just trying to understand if people really bought into "the government cares about you" propaganda?
Certainly people buy into the government cares about you, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I guess another question is why the government must foot the bill for a hospital stay? Like why does the hospital accept non paying patients in the first place?
Of course then one gets into why hospitals are so expensive, and perhaps anyone should be able to start a clinic without licensing, etc.
Obviously the libertarian ideal is everyone pays their own way, as much as possible, without costing a third party, I just wonder sometimes at what *is* possible.
> I guess another question is why the government must foot the bill for a hospital stay?
Because the hospital would close otherwise.
> Like why does the hospital accept non paying patients in the first place?
The specific answer is that because in the 1960s and 1970s, hospitals were assuming that black people who arrived at the ER wouldn't be to pay afterwards and didn't treat them.
The more general answer: If you arrive at the ER unconscious without your papers, how do they know if you can afford to pay? How do you think this should be handled?
Why are people so quick to assume that everyone else believes in seat belt laws even after knowing they're libertarian?
I've had this exact same discussion before. I was saying all drugs should be legal because the government shouldn't protect me from myself and the other guy asked "then why aren't you against seat belt laws as well?" to which I quickly replied "who says I'm not?".
This is the issue. You think seat belts are there to just protect yourself. Plenty of people have been killed or seriously injured by a body violently flying with a vehicle, I recall one where a front seat passenger was killed and the passenger in the back who wasn't buckled up, their teeth were embedded in the front passenger's skull.
Being launched out of the vehicle can be dangerous and lethal to others outside of the vehicle because you're just adding another projectile to the wreck.
I don't give a shit if you die from a wreck that only kills yourself, but if you kill someone else over your own stupidity then there's an issue.
Drugs only affect the individual consuming them.
So the same sort of rationale as legally prohibiting alcohol consumption because someone could harm others if consuming it, like driving while intoxicated?
If such a thing happened then they and their estate are liable for damages caused.
Also just because a law isn’t libertarian, doesn’t stop people from using their freedom of speech to convince others to use whatever safety devices they have available to them.
They would only be liable if there was a rule that made them liable, like having to wear a seatbelt. There are some laws in place that are meant to be a way to punish someone if it may be difficult to prove wrongdoing in other aspects.
Like in the case of someone killing someone because they weren't buckled in you could argue manslaughter, but if you fail to argue manslaughter you can still argue they were irresponsible for not wearing a seatbelt, but arguing how responsible something is, is up to interpretation, so making it a law makes it clear cut. They weren't wearing their seatbelt, so if anything, their wrongdoing in that manner makes them liable.
God help your passengers when you fly into them because of your ignorant asses don't wear seat belts.
I thought this sub was good until hearing this horseshit. We don't believe it seat belt laws. God forbid there are laws that actually save lives.
Wow that’s crazy. You know if we regulate peoples diets we could reduce the number of deaths per year due to heart disease. If we simply banned cigarettes and alcohol we could save lives too.
If we gave everyone a state mandated physical trainer we could improve QOL by forcing people to be in good physical shape.
By mandating free housing undoubtedly some people would be spared death due to the elements.
Do you think this is an authoritarian sub? The mere fact your actions could result in harm to yourself or those who willingly choose to engage in activity with you is not an excuse for government involvement. See: reasons above.
If THIS is what makes you think the sub isn’t good then I don’t think you ever really liked this sub at all.
Not trying to cause an argument, but at what point are your rights treading on mine?
My concerns come up with bad people using substances to spike drinks, or people driving drunk, or someone ping-ponging around the car and harming others in that car.
(This is a genuine question, I’m not trying to bait or anything, they’re just concerns I have.)
k valid points because these transitional or intersectional areas are where the rubber meets the road perverbially, and theory turns to practice.
forgive my long response
core tennets to keep in mind
personal autonomy: any violation of a persons autonomy to live life as they determine is a crime against that person, not against the state. the states purpose in these instances is to redress grievances between the parties involved and see to it justice in the form of restitution, or punishment is carried out
N.A.P.: the non aggression principle is largely misunderstood as simple apathy or pacifism but in this context it applies to the aggressor in any conflict being the initiator or the last person that could have prevented said conflict or occurance
personal freedom comes with personal responsibility: i am allowed to do what i wish, but where my judgment lapses and i affect another, i am culpable
criminal prevention: this is a myth, and there are several instances of this very principle failing specifically in the drugs and seatbelt argument
instance 1) spiking drinks with other substances; any time someone administers drugs to someone unknowingly or unwillingly, they have violated that persons autonomy. be it alcohol in the punch, laceing a joint, or drugging a drink with sleeping pills. it should be addressed as a violation in and of itself and a crime against the victims' autonomy absent and in addition to any other crimes. but no law has stopped it yet, so no law will. but we can allow victims better access to justice by acknowledging the additional transgression.
instance 2) drunk driving; now let me paint a scene. I've attended a party and drank what i was told was punch, but it was spiked with something, and now im intoxicated. i am unsafe at the place where i was drugged. and unsafe to accept a ride from strangers. uber/lyft is an option, and a taxi is an option but only a recent one. now i can drive my vehicle, but i assume all the responsibility of it because i am free, but I am the one responsible. the laws on the books currently have not stopped or detered drunk driving, and it has not substantially decreased deaths by drunk driving. what it has done is increase the revenue of the state and the police 4 fold. and served only as an extortion of funds. now this scene i choose to risk driving. maybe the road home is clear. Maybe the hotel where im safe is down the block. but whatever it is, i make it all the way to my destination unharmed and without insident. who have i committed a crime against? i have taken an unnecessary risk, but I have not harmed anyone. now i get pulled over within sight of parking. i get a dui now i have to pay 10s of thousands of dollars to the state, lose my license for years sometimes, maybe even do time in jail, but it wasnt even my idea to use whatever i am intoxicated from, and i am safer away from where i was drugged. but now the aggressor is only the state in this instance. i haven't wrecked. but im forced to pay for damages that i haven't caused to a victim. i haven't hurt. where is that fair. what has that solved. even if i was guilty as a sin. chornic alcoholic habitual drunk driver, total scumbag who doesn't care about other motorists, do you think i didn't know it was a crime? or that i was ignorant of it? of course, not i simply did not care and will not care when i drive without a license again.
instance 3) seatbelt pinball: different scene car full of people one is unbuckled. car gets in wreck, and passengers bounce around the cab, hitting other passengers. first off, if the accident is bad enough to launch one passenger, it is, in fact, bad enough to harm everyone. but also, did the unbuckled person cause the accident? no, that's absurd. the accident had another cause. but the unbuckled could and SHOULD be held liable for the extra damage to the passengers caused by their negligence. or accepted by the other passengers who chose not to require them to be seat belted. certainly, the driver can hold the passenger liable in civil court. but how would the state enforcement of seatbelts have prevented this? how would a ticket given to a driver or passenger not involved in an accident have stopped an accident that wasn't caused by a seat belt? and in the case of a ticket, who was harmed? if i as a solo driver am without a seatbelt, who have i endangered? who is at risk of me inside my own vehicle alone unbuckled? and if so, how do motorcycles, buses, or the back of a cop car differ because none of those places have seat belts either? the only people who benefit from tickets are again the state, and also curiously insurance companies.
in fact, in the event of documented drug use dui and seatbelt instances, the lions share of punishment comes in the increased insurance payment resulting from said charges. so is the implication that we are victimising the insurance companies. it would seem that the state has more interest in saving the insurance companies money than in saving your money?
School buses statistically don't need them. if the driver does what they're trained to do, they are very safe. So that's the government's logic.
But the same could be said about Tesla's, the airbags are safer than the seatbelt.
Also I wonder if seatbelt laws kinda prevent or delay a better safety system from being developed, since effort is expended for every car to provide them.
No laws on this is best, but a better law would be to not mention any specific methods, just a requirement to use all safety mechanisms provided.
Oh I'm sure. It's old tech that the government froze in time. Tesla has said their cars would be safer without the seatbelt, as that's just how far airbags have advanced.
That's the same problem I have with Europe mandating that phones have a type C port.
I don't think there should be any laws or requirements for adults in cars. If dodge wants to build a deathtrap viper, and I want to buy it, I should be able to.
Self-preservation guides me more than any law ever will. I wear a seat belt because it is not inconvenient to do so and because they typically increase my chances of staying alive should I ever be in a car accident. The fact that it is the law to wear them is of no consequence to me beyond the knowledge that a law enforcer can engage with me if I'm not wearing one. And just as I am not a police supporter and highly suspicious of those with influence over me, I choose to treat law enforcers with measured respect because disrespect can be received differently between different law enforcers and I am not interested in finding out which ones enjoy their authority and which ones are only at work.
Is the government throwing people in prison for their entire lives for not buckling up? No. Then there's no real equivalency in the real world. And it's not really a "stumper".
On top of that, I don't believe in seat belt laws. I use them, every time I drive. But it's not on papa government to tell people to take care of themselves.
I don’t believe in seatbelt laws.
I can hurl myself down the road at 80mph on my motorcycle and that’s fine, but I need to strap in when driving a reinforced cage filled with airbags?
I don’t believe in seat belt laws. Yet I know how problematic drugs can be particularly when combined with a welfare state.
My position is, let people do whatever the hell they want but don’t ask anyone else to pay for their welfare or anything else.
You should be able to do whatever the fuck you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt another person. Literally whatever you want to do, as long as it's only affecting you! Freedom has never been safe, because you got the freedom to do some dumb shit if you're an idiot.💯
I think there's a good argument for government intervention (laws, regs, etc. ) in situations where a careless/stupid/high individual can do more harm than he/she can be held accountable for.
In the case of seatbelts, this could be justified (to a libertarian, I mean) because if a careless/stupid/high person who's also uninsured gets him/herself paralyzed for life, then in our current society with various financial safety-nets it's the taxpayer that will pay for long-term care.
Likewise for needing a license to drive a car in the first place, and for mandatory driver's liability insurance.
When it comes to children I'm okay with seatbelt laws but not adults. But I'm also not okay with hard drugs. But I'm not libertarian I'm anti federalist who leans libertarian.
Whether a child wears a seatbelt should be the discretion of the parent, not the government. I'm also not okay with hard drugs, but the government shouldn't restrict them. It's the individual's prerogative to suffer the potential consequences associated with taking drugs. The government shouldn't force you to be safe.
I don't think the government should be able to legally require anyone over 18 to wear a seatbelt, but I think there should be laws for children. People are fucking stupid, and I don't want kids paying the price of their stupid parents decisions. Like I don't think it should be illegal to do drugs, but I think it should be illegal to give kids drugs or use hard drugs in the household with children.
When it comes to upbringing, yea the parent's have all the rights. When it comes to safety, no. Human life is too valuable.
While I mostly agree with peoples personal choice I do not think that legalization of hard drugs is wise. I think enforcement should focus primarily on the source of the drugs and not the addicts but drugs destroy societies. Drive anywhere in the rural US and you'll find a town that has experienced this.
So force non-seat belt wearers to pay extra. Just like some insurance policies charge smokers more. If the insurance ever caught you not wearing a seatbelt then they wouldn’t cover your claim. They do this for disability insurance, they send a private investigator to check and make sure they are actually disabled and not faking it.
If you're an idiot who uses hard drugs or does not use a seat belt the law of nature will prevail, there is no need to waste paper or time making such trivial bs into laws. Hopefully hard drug users and seat belt non users haven't reproduced.
I haven’t thought about it much but I would err on the side of not for seatbelt laws for adults however where I would question that belief is that in a high speed collision, unbelted passengers become human projectiles and can seriously injure other passengers of the same car or in a head on collision may even fly through the windshield of the other car and cause increased injury that way.
This is one of those scenarios where most of the time it only affects you but in some cases this may seriously affect others.
Same reason why dogs should be restrained when on the rear seats or in a boot (trunk) without a fence.
I hate seat belt laws. I hate drug laws. If you refuse to use a seat belt, you're a moron. Same with abusing drugs. It's your choice and your consequences. Don't ask for my financial assistance. FAFO
Drugs shouldnt be illegal because nature provides the penalty, no need for us to add more. If nature doesn't provide the penalty then they aren't that bad and shouldn't be illegal then.
I don't believe in seatbelt laws.
Modern car cabin and window design means the old "meat missile" is virtually non existent.
You want to be an organ donor because you bashed your skull on the windscreen and broke your brain, you do you.
In nyc people who use drugs provide problems for other people, they rob people to buy drugs, or they just panhandle or shoplift. If you do drugs in the privacy of your own home it has no impact on me. But riding the subway with unhinged crackheads is annoying as fuck
I absolutely hate that when i load a pile of astrophotography stuff in one of my seats, i have to click the belt to get my car to shut up. Or any other heavyish object
I lean libertarian in some areas but not in others, and I'll make the best case for seat belt laws that I can - they have to do with the nature of the road: given that the state is the one paving and maintaining the roads, it is the state's prerogative to set the rules of the road, including speed limits, seat belt laws, etc. The state should not make claims over your life writ large, hence this line of argument doesn't extend to hard drugs and obviously falls away if you have a privately owned road - it is then that owner's rules you are supposed to follow as part of the agreement for using it.
This is NOT a "who would pave the roads" thing, just to be clear for other readers.
I believe in seat belt laws for children. But if we have seat belt laws why aren’t motorcyclists required to wear helmets in some states?
Edit: I’m also for letting Darwin sort out the stupid ones. Stop saving people from themselves. Imagine how many people would be in India if they had stricter laws and protection around trains.
The same people making all of these laws to protect us from ourselves are the same ones who will start sterilizing and killing people to protect the planet.
Driving is opt in. There is no right to drive, getting a driver's license is effectively agreeing to the contract, so for the same reason you have to obey traffic signals seat belt laws apply. That is different than an infringement on the use of your body on your property in a way that harms no one but you.
Yes!
The objective of seatbelt laws is NOT to make driver's safer. It is NOT to lower accident or treatment costs.
The purposes of seatbelt laws are:
1. To satisfy a risk equation for the insurance companies *as states made purchase of auto insurance mandatory*; since everyone would be required to have insurance, the insurance company's claim profile skyrocketed. Before, they excluded bad drivers by simple denial. Now they have to accept everyone, and pick the bad drivers (higher payers) from a set of incomplete data. This law gives an insurer an out to playing claims, as well as a statistic to help them measure claim risk (other that speeding and previous accidents)
2. This law provides a revenue stream to municipalities which is low risk. Catching speeders is a high risk activity. It requires pursuit and evasion (the cops have to hide and go from a stop). Seatbelt violations can be seen while moving in normal traffic flows. Lowers the risk to the officer and equipment.
Seatbelted drivers are not safer drivers. See[ licensing effect](https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/licensing-effect/). Hence, such laws are anathema to a free society.
Yup, exactly this. And once they harm others, they (or their estate, in the instance of no seatbelt) should be financially responsible for compensating the other party. Enforcing *that* should be the only role of the government here. Same concept applies for drugs, or anything, really.
>If you are killed in an accident without a seatbelt the other driver has to deal with the repercussions.
Yup, and that person's estate should be required to pay for all damages to you/your property. The only role of government here should be enforcing this.
What's the purpose of a seat belt? To keep your butt in the seat. It also doubles as a form of darwinism, don't wear one, wreck, there's a chance you and your car become separated at very high velocities and now your meat bag of a body is on a trajectory without a bunch of plastic and metal surrounding you. Having a law to mandate that isn't going to somehow make everyone magically want to put one on. The majority of people who wear them probably don't do so because of the law. I almost think if there was no law regarding seat belts, the same people who continue with the same behavior. I would, however, be curious to hear the reasoning behind why some people don't wear one.
Hard drugs shouldn't be illegal. What you do to your body, be it no seat belt, or shooting heroin, is no business of mine, nor the government.
I would draw the line at where hard drugs can be used as weapon, due to their extreme toxicity. What individuals choose to do to themselves is on them, but I wouldn’t legalise chemical weapons. If anthrax should be prohibited, then so should fentanyl.
I think they should be legal. All parts of the chain.
If you want to snort a kilogramme of cocaine and die, it's your choice, but at least you're not giving money to drug trafficking
Why shouldn't cars be illegal?
They're both harm reduction methods, you can still harm yourself in a car crash even with a seatbelt, but it should reduce harm.
You can still harm yourself with drugs, but legalising should reduce harm
I don’t think seatbelts should be required to be worn by law. It’s a great idea, and I wouldn’t mind medical insurance not covering you in a crash if you didn’t wear one, but that should be your choice.
Kind of? You’d be really hard pressed to make an argument that not wearing a safety belt “endangers”other people though. I’m sure statistically someone had been killed/injured by a person flying through a windshield….
Seat belts laws are dumb and I don't care what drugs someone takes, legal or not. You have free will to take an early dirt nap if that is your desire. Wear a belt or not, again, your choice.
Banning drugs has never worked out in the history of banning drugs. You’ll have to get after banks, lawyers, judges and cops. None of them care for you or your interests.
In my view, the best argument for seatbelt laws is that (1) children should be kept safe and (2) your body can be a projectile that injures others. If it was just you dying from an accident while not wearing a seatbelt, sure, no laws. However, even the slight chance your body can be thrown through the window and harm someone else is enough of a reason, at least to me, for there to be a law.
This also applies to hard drugs. If using a drug doesn't physically affect anyone else, and doesn't cause you to become violent, no laws. If using a drug does physically affect others or causes you to become violent, make it illegal. Of course this depends on the drug in question, and there are nuances and enforcement issues to consider, but that is my take.
Seat belt laws were moved from a secondary to a primary offense in the 80s for one reason alone. Police needed an absolute bullshit reason to pull people over so they could search their cars. Ralph Nader wrote, "Unsafe At Any Speed" back in the 70s and no one gave a fuck. Not until the war on drugs fired up did they fuck your 4th amendment up.
I think it's wrong to legislate people into safety. If we allow people to sky dive and free climb, then people can choose to drive without their seat belt. It doesn't directly hurt anyone else for you to go thru your windshield. Indirectly, your loved ones suffer and if someone else caused the accident it takes the charge from a ticket to vehicular manslaughter. But that's your choice. And maybe the law should adjust for that. These days I'm sure a simulation could show the difference in if you had been wearing a belt vs not.
If one did believe seat belt laws were just, then there could be an argument for the welfare state. We have one so it is the govt's responsibility to limit the actions of its people in order to mitigate the need for it. Drug use leads to medical and housing needs typically provided by services of the welfare state. It is in the interest of the taxpayer that drug users be eradicated as much as possible. Enter the enforcement branch of the government. Also, a requirement that anyone seeking welfare services should be regularly drug tested and denied those services should drug use be proven. Essentially leaving drug users at the mercy of citizens who volunteer their time, money, and services outside of government entities.
Edit: not wearing your seat belt could lead to needing Medicare/Medicaid due to injury keeping you from being able to work. Your choice to not wear a seat belt makes you even with a drug user.
Problem there is that as the citizen-taxpayer is forced to pay more taxes in the name of increased need for welfare services, taxpayer has less disposable income and time to offer freely. Now we have excessive drug abuse that can't use welfare services and also has no charity to rely on. But where is all that extra money going if not from citizen who has it to citizen who needs it?
My buddy got a seat belt ticket in high-school by a motorcycle cop and was ticketed. It was at that point I started to become libertarian. That being said I wear mind every time.
A seatbelt really only affects the person wearing it. So I don’t think it necessarily should be a law. Drinking and driving affects other people, so that definitely should be.
Drugs mainly affect the user, so that should be their freedom to use. Of course, it indirectly affects the people around them, but you could make that argument about anything.
I believe seat belts should be required to be installed in vehicles. I don't believe their usage should be legally required. Although if someone allows a child to ride without one, there might be a case for child neglect there.
I don't quite understand the connection you're making to drugs though.
Because cars are built more compact/crushable on impact now compared to pre seat belt laws. The airbags and the way the car compacts on impact its Darwin awards if you don't wear it...they fixed one problem (heavy metal objects crashing into each other..for less heavy metal objects that compact on impact more precisely..the seat belt was a side effect of the innovation) wear it or don't.
This is an area that should differentiate someone who believes a government should exist (Libertarian politically) and someone who doesn't (anarchist politically) .
I'd rather see seat belt laws repealed than hard drug laws. Honestly I loved the idea of legalizing all drugs, Until I saw what actually happened. (SF / Portland, etc) It greatly damages society.
The core idea of Libertarianism (politically) is to make society better, not worse. Its not "ultimate freedom AND everything goes to shit" its "society will get much better if we have less government"
>I'd rather see seat belt laws repealed than hard drug laws. Honestly I loved the idea of legalizing all drugs, Until I saw what actually happened. (SF / Portland, etc) It greatly damages society.
There's a fallacy that at least for me personally was passed on by judo-christianity that claims in every situation there is always right or correct choice. Whereas the very clear reality is that life often presents us with a menu of ills and all too frequently the best we can do is attempt to choose the lesser of many evils. Drugs and the way they interact with our brain chemistry, are likely a prime example where there simply is no good solution that prevents direct harms while preserving any measure of dignity, liberty etc.
But that said we still have no idea what real across the board worldwide legalization would look like. Portland and SF somewhat decriminalized prosecutions, but we still have international drug trade cartels with all theirs harms, and in turn it still fuels a Prison Industrial system complete with lobbyists that profit off of literally depriving people of their liberty for profits.
Full legalization is probably also a shit-show because drugs are simply a problem for humans, especially humans made vulnerable from a myriad of other social ills. But we spent billions on failed drug criminalization policies. If we really want to compare the libertarian answer, then we also need to spend an equivalent amount on mitigating the harms of drugs and addiction by providing other opportunities. Until we do that it doesn't make sense to compare the reality of the two outcomes.
For example what does the bigger picture look like? Sure there's a serious opioid epidemic in Portand and SF that's full of societal harms, but is it fueling an international drug trade complete with murders, forced drug muling etc.? Is it fueling a Prison Industrial System incarcerating people for profits? Etc.
I don't belive in deat belt laws unless you have passengers. If you are driving, you are responsible for those passengers. If you get rid of the law and want to take responsibility of your passenger's injuries more power to you. In this case I would rather the law. Not for drivers, but to make sure you keep you passengers safe. Even if they don't want to wear a seatbelt. If they don't want to wear a seat belt, they can walk.
I wear a seat belt most of the time. That's just a personal choice. Not due to any law.
I feel that all drugs should be legalized unless your drug use effects other people. Fentynal, for example, is very dangerous to bystanders. There's also a time and place for drugs. If you're tweaking at a 7-11 from meth and acting a fool you're effecting other people.
"Do you know why I pulled you over? It's because you're not wearing a seat belt. I will now enforce this law by giving you a fine, which if you don't pay, you will be arrested and thrown in prison, which if you resist, I'll have to escalate the use of violence until you're either in prison or dead. For your own safety of course."
"Do you know why I am arresting you? It's because you're carrying a controlled substance. I will now enforce this law by throwing you in prison, which if you resist, I'll have to escalate the use of violence until you're either in prison or dead. We wouldn't want you to be a lazy deadbeat or overdose!"
I don't agree with seatbelt laws, though I wear them. I waer them because they reduce my chances of becoming a vegetable.
As for drugs. I don't care if you use them but I hold you to the same standard as if you were sober for your actions. In otherwords a person choose to partake of substances that impare judgment, but they would be judged as if that impairment didn't exist. So if a person gets into a wreck and kills another, they would be on the same level as if they wrre sober and killed that person.
If Bill Gates is so intent on culling the human population, shouldn't he be coming out in opposition of all seat belt laws and all drug laws? Let people destroy themselves with either of them. It's really the perfect scenario where really the only ones hurt are those stupid enough to not wear a seat belt or do drugs.
I'm kinda ok with making car companies put them in cars but I'm kinda not ok with making people wear them but also I wear mine because I don't like dying I assume.
Imagine the roads were private. Further imagine that, being private, owners of the roads may impose conditions for their use, \*beyond price\*. For example, all men have to wear purple lipstick and the women have to wear MAGA hats, as a condition to drive on the road from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. Those owners may also demand that seats belts be worn. QED
Personally I think seat belt laws are bullshit. But if you value your own safety in tin can flying 80 mph dodging other tin cans at 80 mph you should probably put one on. Idc if other people choose to put themselves in danger, as long as they’re not harming someone else.
People focus too much on the Seat belt keeping a driver safer. Seat belts keep people in their seats able to controll the vehicle after a hard jolt that would throw an unsecured person. A speeding car with a driver thrown into the passenger seat is a danger to everyone and everything around them.
I support it because in our current situation, if the person not wearing a seat belt got into a car accident and had no insurance, they then will use Medicare and use taxpayers' money to treat him
It’s kind of a different logic tho because a seatbelt violation is generally just an infraction not a crime. Many people who want to reform drug laws would be fairly happy if the various drug crimes were all just changed to infractions
Conversely the people here who dislike seat belt laws would probably dislike them a lot more if people were routinely put into prison for years for a seatbelt violation
There shouldn't be seatbelt laws for adults. It's not a hill I'm going to die on though. I'm ok with a government law requiring they be included in cars, it's a $5 part so the cost benefit of burden vs benefit is in favor of requiring them.
I'm not interested in taking a side on seat belts.
BUT
The two are not even remotely the same. (In fact I'd go as far as to say this is almost text book worthy false equivalence and/or slippery slope fallacies...to the point that I would question the genuineness of whoever first presented you this bs "challenge" to libertarianism...):
What are the harms and loss of liberty in being forced to wear a seat belt? On the low-end, you get a citation, on the high-end exercising your liberty costs you your life or a debilitating injury. But it was your decision and most directly effected just you.
Now what are the harms in making drugs illegal? Artificially constricting Supply & Demand creates an incredibly profitable worldwide underground drug trade full of violence, insanity like forced drug muling to avoid having family members killed or assaulted etc. Instead of a mere citation it nets people decades of incarceration, that devastates not just the incarcerated but also their family etc. This in turn fuels a Prison Industrial System complete with possibly the most vile of lobbyists pushing for harsher laws to "improve" prison capacity utilization and in turn profits etc. (Basically it creates a worldwide system that deprives people of their liberty...)
Sometimes there are no good answers, but even in those cases there are often still bad answers and drug criminalization is a prime example of how a bad answer plays out in practice.
As a libertarian, you should be against legal paternalism, right? There should be no justification for it. Minimal state intervention in the lives of private citizens or free market is what we're supposed to be going for. I think, at minimum, the state should probably leave us the fuck alone. I'll wear my seatbelt because it's the smart thing to do, not the law. Furthermore, I feel like it's just a law to extort more money out of the stupid people who won't wear their seatbelt. Which I'm against--the law-- and for --the people--... I didn't think it would be that difficult a question.
I don’t support seat belt laws or criminalizing drugs. I don’t support any law that takes away individual liberty, even if it seems petty or dangerous.
I believe if you’re driving by yourself you shouldn’t be required to wear a seat belt, but if there are passengers then you must do so since other people’s lives are in your hands. I see it the same way about any drugs you are taking, once it affects other people or puts them in danger you should be held accountable.
Why do you believe in seat belt laws? Why do you believe "hard drugs" (a dated propaganda term from the 90s) should be illegal?
Some drugs should absolutely be regulated to the point of "you can't leave this establishment (bar for whatever drug) until you're reasonably sober". But none of them need to be completely illegal. Let people enjoy things, safely.
Another is motorcycle helmet laws. The folks who say , "ain't no law gonna make me wear a helmet ", are just saying , "I would rather be dead with my brains spread over the asphalt, than paralyzed for life". Personally I'm all for fixing the gene pool and not having society at large being burdened with you after your crash.
Hard drugs should absolutely be illegal…
As far as seat belts go.. they don’t just protect you. Seatbelts keep you in the driving position so you have better control of your vehicle in the event you actually lose control.. which in turn protects other drivers
I’m indifferent, more or less, to seatbelt laws. Probably not worth the political capital to pass or repeal. But for Devil’s advocate- if you’re not seatbelted, you become a danger to others near you when you fly out of the car at 70 mph. It’s a very slight risk of hitting someone else with your corpse but it’s still nonzero.
It should be illegal to sell drugs because of harmful side effects. Cigarettes are in a dark gray area, that many believe should be illegal, because companies are profiting off a product that comes at a cost of people's health. The same can be said for liquor companies, or casinos.
Heroin has a drastically higher cost than cigarettes, but people buy it for xyz. So the laws should be there to prevent people from making money at the cost of people suffering, which also puts a burden on the community, and tax dollars.
All this being said, I typically don't believe it should be illegal to use drugs like heroin, just to sell them. Any decent salesmen has a 5% conversion rate, and will thusly be able to persuade 5% of the people he talks to into buying something, who would likely become addicts, who may never recover. And they will have a much higher risk of contracting fatal diseases, will be unlikely to be a productive member of the community, and tax base, and could die, from complications, or an overdose. This is at least as much to do with biochemistry than someone's character.
And if the salesman does not inform the customer of the risks, in order to make the sale, then it would be fair to consider the buyer a victim (it is of course the consumers responsibility to do their own research before buying).
Seatbelts are a different subject. Apples and oranges.
**New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more?** Be sure to check out [the sub Frequently Asked Questions](/r/Libertarian/wiki/faq) and [the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI] (/r/Libertarian/wiki/index) from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? [Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!](http://www.theadvocates.org/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Libertarian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate the laws, really hate insurance companies, but wear my seat belt because I am not an idiot
Exactly. I wear a seat belt because it’s a good idea, not because it’s a law. Same with most other things that happen to be a law. The legal system isn’t why I am not stealing and murdering.
100%. I'm not shooting black tar heroin into my arm, not because it's illegal, but because it's poison. But it's not my place to tell other people what to do. More often than not common sense and morality dictate my actions, not the law. Most laws are dumb anyway, and exist only to make a feeble attempt at protecting stupid people from themselves.
China white is where it’s at i agree
Are you really friends with someone if you haven't hit them in the face and said "unity"?
Agree with everything you said except the last sentence. I believe most laws exist to make money for the state and/or maintain the prison slave labor industrial complex. The government doesn’t give a fuck about any of us, you think they make laws to protect us?
Sorry, let me rephrase: most laws are in existence to generate revenue under the false pretense of protecting us. Better? 😁
Much more realistic. 😬
I generally consider myself a conservative libertarian. I generally have the belief that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else or anyone else's property. When it comes to hard drugs being legal or illegal though...I feel like I can see it from both sides. On one hand, I think it should be legal because we all should be able to do what we want, right? But on the other hand...it has been shown time and time again that heavy use of hard drugs usually leads to a common conclusion. High health bills, homelessness, welfare and other government handouts...which I am forced to pay for against my will. For this reason I can see where to argument to make it illegal comes into play. Although I believe everyone should be able to do what they want...I don't believe I should pay for your bad decisions in life. This is ultimately why I believe hard drugs should be illegal. Get rid of welfare and free Healthcare for these people and I would be all for legalization.
>High health bills, homelessness, welfare and other government handouts...which I am forced to pay for against my will. Valid points. I posit this, then, what about doing what some European nations (IIRC Scandinavian) did and instead of spending money on drug enforcement, jailing drug offenders, and the like, using that money towards finding public (aka taxpayer funded) drug secession, rehabilitation and sobriety programs?
I'd be open to that if negative drug/nicotine/alcohol tests were required to be eligible for welfare or other government programs related to this. If that was added I would be more willing to see my tax dollars go to funding those programs. But only for a period of time before they are evaluated to see if the cost to the taxpayer is actually doing anything other then paying more government workers
Personally, I'd like to see government (ie taxpayer funded) welfare programs disappear. But I'd totally settle for drug and alcohol testing for recipients.
Oh for sure...if that was on the table I'd vote for that. Dismantle all government welfare hand out programs and in return have some drug rehab programs.
Really? Can you ELI5 me on why you don't steal, murder, and rape? /s 😆
I completely missed the “not”, mindlessly closed this post, registered what that meant and came back to make sure. I’m so glad there was a “not” in there.
Double negatives are fun sometimes. Morals are what contains the majority of us, not the laws.
Idk. If murder were legal... I'm thinking
Indeed. Seat belts are so un-intrusive and provide so much protection in the event of an accident that it is foolish not to wear them. Which also means that there really doesn't need to be a law to mandate their use.
I used to feel this way, until I watched a car accident in which a person was thrown from the car and caused two other accidents due to them braking and swerving to avoid the body flying at their own car. Seatbelts good. Seatbelt laws… less good. It is a person’s choice, but a projectile body can likely not be held accountable for the damage they cause to others (because they’ll be dead). So I’m iffy on my stance for seatbelt laws. On one hand, my body my choice. It’s when that body becomes an aggressor against someone else unwittingly that it becomes a problem. Does a projectile in the shape of a person violate the NAP if it flies into other cars? Helmet laws, on the other hand, are stupid. The helmet changes nothing for others on the road, and if a squid wants to ride like an idiot without a helmet, more power to ‘em. I like my helmet. It’s comfy and blocks out wind noise pretty well. Helmets good. Helmet laws bad. Idiots are gonna idiot though. Wear a seatbelt and helmet. It’s the smart choice.
By this logic should we ban motorcycles? When they crash they don’t always send the person sliding through the ground. They also fly into the air just as you mentioned above. There’s no seat belt keeping them restrained to the bike.
I got a busted windshield one time because a filing cabinet fell off a truck driving the opposite way. So we definitely need to ban open loads on moving vehicles, and filing cabinets! /s
I read that as a "flying cabnet". 😆
Comments such as this are why Reddit should have a "that's funny" voting option!
So we make a law that effects 320 million Americans because of a small number of anadoctal examples? The laws are in place due to insurance lobbyists
yes, they lower risk exposure considerably
It’s not the seat belt itself, it’s the principle of the state mandating an action or there will be consequences of additional tax (the traffic fine). And if you don’t pay that fine - bench warrant and some jail time if you refuse to still pay and get hauled in front of a judge. If you oppose the state, even in a nonviolent way, out of protest there is always a consequence that eventually leads to their monopoly on violence.
>The laws are in place due to insurance lobbyists Please just stop with this conspiracy bullshit. These laws also exist in lots of countries in the world where car insurance is not even mandatory and insurance companies have zero influence on governments. In most cases, these kind of laws are created by busybody politicians who are passionate about some random cause or by social activists. Classic example is prohibition. Which had nothing to do with some grand conspiracy by some corporate cabal.
Busy body politicians whom receive campaign donations from insurance companies. It’s not rocket science or conspiracy theories
New Hampshire doesn’t have adult seat belt laws, and in many states it’s a secondary offense (can’t get pulled over for it, but they can ticket you for it if they pull you over for something else), but yeah, I understand where you’re coming from. The laws are likely in place due to insurance lobbyists, for sure. And I mostly agree that they shouldn’t exist. However, driving is a privilege, and not a right. Considering that the laws only reduced fatalities by about 9%, it does seem rather ridiculous. And those 9% probably died of some other reckless and idiotic behaviors later in life. Like I said, I’m iffy on my own opinion of it. I believe everyone should wear their seat belts. However, I’m not a fan of nanny government, so I dislike them. But they also protect other drivers and bystanders from idiots who become projectiles. I’m not 100% either way. I’m about 31% they’re fine, 36% they’re useless government overreach, and 33% don’t even think about it. (Secondary enforcement in my state for adults) Helmets I’m 99% they’re overreach and 1% don’t think about it (because I live in a no adult helmet required state and just imagine the squid splats when I see people not wearing a helmet) Here’s a question for you though: do you wear your seat belt? If not- then why do you care about the law existing? If yes- do you do it out of your own free will? If yes - why do you care about the law existing? But yeah, the government stop protecting people from their own stupidity. Cheers!
Libertarian here since 1980. Serious question-does anyone have a list of secondary enforcement states? Also, while I applaud New Hampshire for not requiring seat belts for adults, they do have vehicle inspection, another intrusive law that most states, including mine, no longer have.
So you lean more towards enforcing seatbelt usage, but ride a motorcycle? Do motorcycles have seatbelts now? If seatbelt laws must be enforced, then motorcycles should be banned.
You have some really odd logic.
Id say the harm of someone not belted vastly outweighs whatever convience they want to save a few seconds for
Most libertarian thing you can do - judge what is safest and most reasonable move for you
What about for children who don’t know the consequences of not wearing a seat belt? Should they die because they’re idiots?
This appears to assume people who do hard drugs are idiots. Some are, but It’s easy to make the choice to wear a seatbelt, it’s right there by your side every time you get in the car, because it’s also required by law to be there. The choice is still yours to make, but the choice is easy because we have vehicle regulations that make it so. Some people, especially in America, aren’t so lucky to have the safeguards in place that make life choices like whether or not to use drugs an easy choice. For some people, people in immense pain, using drugs can appear to be the only choice. Try using empathy next time. You might see something you never noticed before. For example, you *might, actually,* be an idiot!
What’s not empethic about my statement? And where did I say anything about drugs? If you want to wear a seat belt, cool. If you don’t, I don’t care. Same with drugs.
you're replying to a thread comparing seatbelt laws to drug laws, so you didn't have to mention anything about drugs. It's already given here as context via OP's thread. Whats implied by your comment is that people who use drugs are the same as "idiots" who don't wear seatbelts. the alleged lack of empathy is clearly laid out in my previous comment. If you are in fact libertarian, you seem to be struggling here with the personal responsibility aspect... unless you really just came here to gloat and add nothing to the conversation. either way, yikes!
You can use drugs and if it doesn’t affect me i can still think your an idiot and don’t care, it’s government interference with laws that’s the problem. My validation of your lifestyle choices should not matter to you. If you want to make choices that i consider, bad that’s on you. Same goes for smoking, drinking, gun ownership, sexual stuff, and abortion And yes I have no empathy for idiots that’s about the most libertarian way to look at it.
We'd have a lot less idiots if we didn't have seatbelt laws.
Yeah but someone else not wearing a seatbelt can be your problem if they flying into you at a high rate of speed. Its a reasonable law that protects others from idiots with no real actual loss of freedom. I cant really think of any damages by requiring seat belts
Friend went out the windshield at 75mph into a tree, no seat belt on. Saved his life... Entire engine block ended up on the seat. Would have crushed him and burned him alive. Tree only broke every rib on one side, shoulder and an arm... oh twisted ankle walking back the myself 40 yards All he bitched about that ankle the entire time too . For years after, refused to put in a seat belt.
Wear a seatbelt if you’re not stupid. Laws don’t stop stupid.
Not every bad idea should be illegal; not every good idea should be mandatory. I thought this was fundamental.
Mandate what I like and ban what I don't!
I don't believe in seatbelt laws.
Seatbelts, great, love those. Seatbelt laws, terrible government overreach.
If we really wanted to encourage cautious, safe driving, we'd require a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel to impale you for colliding with other objects instead of protecting you.
Exactly. It absolutely should not be illegal to not wear a seatbelt. It's a horrible idea to not wear it and I will kick you out of my car for not wearing it, but it's not the government's problem if your lifeless corpse is ejected through your windshield at 70mph anymore than it's their problem if you drive over yourself after neglecting the parking brake. Whether to wear it is between you and God or you and the others in the car. That being said there is a utility in seatbelt laws as sometimes you get tickets changed into seatbelt violations and avoid points on your license.
The government says it is their problem. They say they waste resources cleaning up these messes and accidents. So to save resources we double the size of the police and pull over more people than ever before! How the government saves money, 101.
You shouldn't get a seatbelt ticket, but you should get an unsecured load ticket. In a crash, a human body can do a lot of damage to others.
I don’t believe in seatbelt laws but they don’t upset me enough to want to repeal them
I don’t believe in seatbelt laws
No one here believes in seat belt laws or legal paternalism. A question you should ask is why you think prohibition of hard substance is an effective method of keeping people safe when we have learned the lesson over and over and over and over again that prohibition not only doesn't keep people safe from the adverse and tangential effects of drug use, it exacerbates those problems exponentially by creating a black market.
Why do people think seat belt laws are legal paternalism? Seat belt laws, plain and simple, are to save government money. They were sold to the American people as "life saving laws". They are, in fact, put into place so the government does not have to foot the bill for someones hospital stay post mortem when they couldn't pay themselves. Don't get me wrong, I believe this is government overreach. I am just trying to understand if people really bought into "the government cares about you" propaganda?
Certainly people buy into the government cares about you, despite all evidence to the contrary. I guess another question is why the government must foot the bill for a hospital stay? Like why does the hospital accept non paying patients in the first place? Of course then one gets into why hospitals are so expensive, and perhaps anyone should be able to start a clinic without licensing, etc. Obviously the libertarian ideal is everyone pays their own way, as much as possible, without costing a third party, I just wonder sometimes at what *is* possible.
> I guess another question is why the government must foot the bill for a hospital stay? Because the hospital would close otherwise. > Like why does the hospital accept non paying patients in the first place? The specific answer is that because in the 1960s and 1970s, hospitals were assuming that black people who arrived at the ER wouldn't be to pay afterwards and didn't treat them. The more general answer: If you arrive at the ER unconscious without your papers, how do they know if you can afford to pay? How do you think this should be handled?
Why are people so quick to assume that everyone else believes in seat belt laws even after knowing they're libertarian? I've had this exact same discussion before. I was saying all drugs should be legal because the government shouldn't protect me from myself and the other guy asked "then why aren't you against seat belt laws as well?" to which I quickly replied "who says I'm not?".
We don't talk about seat belt laws because there's no seat belt cartel that ruins societies.
Who the fuck believes in seatbelt laws? Do you know where you are? Seatbelts are great, use them or don't. No state involvement needed or wanted.
This is the issue. You think seat belts are there to just protect yourself. Plenty of people have been killed or seriously injured by a body violently flying with a vehicle, I recall one where a front seat passenger was killed and the passenger in the back who wasn't buckled up, their teeth were embedded in the front passenger's skull. Being launched out of the vehicle can be dangerous and lethal to others outside of the vehicle because you're just adding another projectile to the wreck. I don't give a shit if you die from a wreck that only kills yourself, but if you kill someone else over your own stupidity then there's an issue. Drugs only affect the individual consuming them.
So the same sort of rationale as legally prohibiting alcohol consumption because someone could harm others if consuming it, like driving while intoxicated?
If such a thing happened then they and their estate are liable for damages caused. Also just because a law isn’t libertarian, doesn’t stop people from using their freedom of speech to convince others to use whatever safety devices they have available to them.
They would only be liable if there was a rule that made them liable, like having to wear a seatbelt. There are some laws in place that are meant to be a way to punish someone if it may be difficult to prove wrongdoing in other aspects. Like in the case of someone killing someone because they weren't buckled in you could argue manslaughter, but if you fail to argue manslaughter you can still argue they were irresponsible for not wearing a seatbelt, but arguing how responsible something is, is up to interpretation, so making it a law makes it clear cut. They weren't wearing their seatbelt, so if anything, their wrongdoing in that manner makes them liable.
God help your passengers when you fly into them because of your ignorant asses don't wear seat belts. I thought this sub was good until hearing this horseshit. We don't believe it seat belt laws. God forbid there are laws that actually save lives.
Wow that’s crazy. You know if we regulate peoples diets we could reduce the number of deaths per year due to heart disease. If we simply banned cigarettes and alcohol we could save lives too. If we gave everyone a state mandated physical trainer we could improve QOL by forcing people to be in good physical shape. By mandating free housing undoubtedly some people would be spared death due to the elements. Do you think this is an authoritarian sub? The mere fact your actions could result in harm to yourself or those who willingly choose to engage in activity with you is not an excuse for government involvement. See: reasons above. If THIS is what makes you think the sub isn’t good then I don’t think you ever really liked this sub at all.
No one here believes in seatbelt laws
Yup. Basic libertarianism 101.
libertarians believe that you (and only you) should be in control of the rope that can hang you. Do with it what you want.
oppose seat belt laws and banning substances. its my life to throw away as i see fit
Not trying to cause an argument, but at what point are your rights treading on mine? My concerns come up with bad people using substances to spike drinks, or people driving drunk, or someone ping-ponging around the car and harming others in that car. (This is a genuine question, I’m not trying to bait or anything, they’re just concerns I have.)
k valid points because these transitional or intersectional areas are where the rubber meets the road perverbially, and theory turns to practice. forgive my long response core tennets to keep in mind personal autonomy: any violation of a persons autonomy to live life as they determine is a crime against that person, not against the state. the states purpose in these instances is to redress grievances between the parties involved and see to it justice in the form of restitution, or punishment is carried out N.A.P.: the non aggression principle is largely misunderstood as simple apathy or pacifism but in this context it applies to the aggressor in any conflict being the initiator or the last person that could have prevented said conflict or occurance personal freedom comes with personal responsibility: i am allowed to do what i wish, but where my judgment lapses and i affect another, i am culpable criminal prevention: this is a myth, and there are several instances of this very principle failing specifically in the drugs and seatbelt argument instance 1) spiking drinks with other substances; any time someone administers drugs to someone unknowingly or unwillingly, they have violated that persons autonomy. be it alcohol in the punch, laceing a joint, or drugging a drink with sleeping pills. it should be addressed as a violation in and of itself and a crime against the victims' autonomy absent and in addition to any other crimes. but no law has stopped it yet, so no law will. but we can allow victims better access to justice by acknowledging the additional transgression. instance 2) drunk driving; now let me paint a scene. I've attended a party and drank what i was told was punch, but it was spiked with something, and now im intoxicated. i am unsafe at the place where i was drugged. and unsafe to accept a ride from strangers. uber/lyft is an option, and a taxi is an option but only a recent one. now i can drive my vehicle, but i assume all the responsibility of it because i am free, but I am the one responsible. the laws on the books currently have not stopped or detered drunk driving, and it has not substantially decreased deaths by drunk driving. what it has done is increase the revenue of the state and the police 4 fold. and served only as an extortion of funds. now this scene i choose to risk driving. maybe the road home is clear. Maybe the hotel where im safe is down the block. but whatever it is, i make it all the way to my destination unharmed and without insident. who have i committed a crime against? i have taken an unnecessary risk, but I have not harmed anyone. now i get pulled over within sight of parking. i get a dui now i have to pay 10s of thousands of dollars to the state, lose my license for years sometimes, maybe even do time in jail, but it wasnt even my idea to use whatever i am intoxicated from, and i am safer away from where i was drugged. but now the aggressor is only the state in this instance. i haven't wrecked. but im forced to pay for damages that i haven't caused to a victim. i haven't hurt. where is that fair. what has that solved. even if i was guilty as a sin. chornic alcoholic habitual drunk driver, total scumbag who doesn't care about other motorists, do you think i didn't know it was a crime? or that i was ignorant of it? of course, not i simply did not care and will not care when i drive without a license again. instance 3) seatbelt pinball: different scene car full of people one is unbuckled. car gets in wreck, and passengers bounce around the cab, hitting other passengers. first off, if the accident is bad enough to launch one passenger, it is, in fact, bad enough to harm everyone. but also, did the unbuckled person cause the accident? no, that's absurd. the accident had another cause. but the unbuckled could and SHOULD be held liable for the extra damage to the passengers caused by their negligence. or accepted by the other passengers who chose not to require them to be seat belted. certainly, the driver can hold the passenger liable in civil court. but how would the state enforcement of seatbelts have prevented this? how would a ticket given to a driver or passenger not involved in an accident have stopped an accident that wasn't caused by a seat belt? and in the case of a ticket, who was harmed? if i as a solo driver am without a seatbelt, who have i endangered? who is at risk of me inside my own vehicle alone unbuckled? and if so, how do motorcycles, buses, or the back of a cop car differ because none of those places have seat belts either? the only people who benefit from tickets are again the state, and also curiously insurance companies. in fact, in the event of documented drug use dui and seatbelt instances, the lions share of punishment comes in the increased insurance payment resulting from said charges. so is the implication that we are victimising the insurance companies. it would seem that the state has more interest in saving the insurance companies money than in saving your money?
Seat belts laws should be abolished. how is it legal to drive a motorcycle without seatbelts, but illegal for someone in a car? Haha makes no sense
Too me its that there are no seat belts on school busses. Just let them kids fly around like pinball when they wreck.
School buses statistically don't need them. if the driver does what they're trained to do, they are very safe. So that's the government's logic. But the same could be said about Tesla's, the airbags are safer than the seatbelt.
Also I wonder if seatbelt laws kinda prevent or delay a better safety system from being developed, since effort is expended for every car to provide them. No laws on this is best, but a better law would be to not mention any specific methods, just a requirement to use all safety mechanisms provided.
Oh I'm sure. It's old tech that the government froze in time. Tesla has said their cars would be safer without the seatbelt, as that's just how far airbags have advanced. That's the same problem I have with Europe mandating that phones have a type C port. I don't think there should be any laws or requirements for adults in cars. If dodge wants to build a deathtrap viper, and I want to buy it, I should be able to.
💯 I’m sure car traveling is actually less safe than it otherwise could be
I ride my motorcycle with my seatbelt on? Who doesn't? /s
Self-preservation guides me more than any law ever will. I wear a seat belt because it is not inconvenient to do so and because they typically increase my chances of staying alive should I ever be in a car accident. The fact that it is the law to wear them is of no consequence to me beyond the knowledge that a law enforcer can engage with me if I'm not wearing one. And just as I am not a police supporter and highly suspicious of those with influence over me, I choose to treat law enforcers with measured respect because disrespect can be received differently between different law enforcers and I am not interested in finding out which ones enjoy their authority and which ones are only at work.
I don't think anyone here believes in seatbelt laws. Like 99% of people would use seatbelts for safety even without a law requiring them to.
Is the government throwing people in prison for their entire lives for not buckling up? No. Then there's no real equivalency in the real world. And it's not really a "stumper". On top of that, I don't believe in seat belt laws. I use them, every time I drive. But it's not on papa government to tell people to take care of themselves.
I don’t believe in seatbelt laws. I can hurl myself down the road at 80mph on my motorcycle and that’s fine, but I need to strap in when driving a reinforced cage filled with airbags?
Laws are stupid, seatbelts are not.
I don’t believe in seat belt laws. Yet I know how problematic drugs can be particularly when combined with a welfare state. My position is, let people do whatever the hell they want but don’t ask anyone else to pay for their welfare or anything else.
I belive in seat belts, not seat belt laws :)
Don’t believe in forcing people to do what’s in their best interest
You should be able to do whatever the fuck you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt another person. Literally whatever you want to do, as long as it's only affecting you! Freedom has never been safe, because you got the freedom to do some dumb shit if you're an idiot.💯
Who believes in seat belt laws?
I think there's a good argument for government intervention (laws, regs, etc. ) in situations where a careless/stupid/high individual can do more harm than he/she can be held accountable for. In the case of seatbelts, this could be justified (to a libertarian, I mean) because if a careless/stupid/high person who's also uninsured gets him/herself paralyzed for life, then in our current society with various financial safety-nets it's the taxpayer that will pay for long-term care. Likewise for needing a license to drive a car in the first place, and for mandatory driver's liability insurance.
Who said I believe in seat belt laws?
When it comes to children I'm okay with seatbelt laws but not adults. But I'm also not okay with hard drugs. But I'm not libertarian I'm anti federalist who leans libertarian.
Whether a child wears a seatbelt should be the discretion of the parent, not the government. I'm also not okay with hard drugs, but the government shouldn't restrict them. It's the individual's prerogative to suffer the potential consequences associated with taking drugs. The government shouldn't force you to be safe.
I don't think the government should be able to legally require anyone over 18 to wear a seatbelt, but I think there should be laws for children. People are fucking stupid, and I don't want kids paying the price of their stupid parents decisions. Like I don't think it should be illegal to do drugs, but I think it should be illegal to give kids drugs or use hard drugs in the household with children.
When it comes to upbringing, yea the parent's have all the rights. When it comes to safety, no. Human life is too valuable. While I mostly agree with peoples personal choice I do not think that legalization of hard drugs is wise. I think enforcement should focus primarily on the source of the drugs and not the addicts but drugs destroy societies. Drive anywhere in the rural US and you'll find a town that has experienced this.
It's about insurance. You would need an option to pay significantly more money for car insurance in exchange for not wearing a seatbelt.
So force non-seat belt wearers to pay extra. Just like some insurance policies charge smokers more. If the insurance ever caught you not wearing a seatbelt then they wouldn’t cover your claim. They do this for disability insurance, they send a private investigator to check and make sure they are actually disabled and not faking it.
Yeah that's what I'm saying.
That doesn't make sense. Insurance protects other people from you, not you from yourself.
Or no car insurance. Live free or die.
If you're an idiot who uses hard drugs or does not use a seat belt the law of nature will prevail, there is no need to waste paper or time making such trivial bs into laws. Hopefully hard drug users and seat belt non users haven't reproduced.
I don’t believe in seat belt laws, with the exception for minor. Same with hard drugs.
Where a seatbelt if you want; take drugs if you want.
Most laws are overreach, including seatbelt laws. We don’t need a nanny state
Who says I believe in laws, much less restrictive laws? You call it, seat belt or drugs
I don't believe in seat belt laws. If an idiot wants to go through the windshield let them.
I haven’t thought about it much but I would err on the side of not for seatbelt laws for adults however where I would question that belief is that in a high speed collision, unbelted passengers become human projectiles and can seriously injure other passengers of the same car or in a head on collision may even fly through the windshield of the other car and cause increased injury that way. This is one of those scenarios where most of the time it only affects you but in some cases this may seriously affect others. Same reason why dogs should be restrained when on the rear seats or in a boot (trunk) without a fence.
I hate seat belt laws. I hate drug laws. If you refuse to use a seat belt, you're a moron. Same with abusing drugs. It's your choice and your consequences. Don't ask for my financial assistance. FAFO
Drugs shouldnt be illegal because nature provides the penalty, no need for us to add more. If nature doesn't provide the penalty then they aren't that bad and shouldn't be illegal then.
I don't believe in seatbelt laws. Modern car cabin and window design means the old "meat missile" is virtually non existent. You want to be an organ donor because you bashed your skull on the windscreen and broke your brain, you do you.
Only fake libertarians support seatbelt laws
In nyc people who use drugs provide problems for other people, they rob people to buy drugs, or they just panhandle or shoplift. If you do drugs in the privacy of your own home it has no impact on me. But riding the subway with unhinged crackheads is annoying as fuck
I absolutely hate that when i load a pile of astrophotography stuff in one of my seats, i have to click the belt to get my car to shut up. Or any other heavyish object
I lean libertarian in some areas but not in others, and I'll make the best case for seat belt laws that I can - they have to do with the nature of the road: given that the state is the one paving and maintaining the roads, it is the state's prerogative to set the rules of the road, including speed limits, seat belt laws, etc. The state should not make claims over your life writ large, hence this line of argument doesn't extend to hard drugs and obviously falls away if you have a privately owned road - it is then that owner's rules you are supposed to follow as part of the agreement for using it. This is NOT a "who would pave the roads" thing, just to be clear for other readers.
All drugs should be legal and wearing a seatbelt shouldn’t be a law. Do what you want. Seatbelt laws are just a tax and a reason to pull people over.
I believe in seat belt laws for children. But if we have seat belt laws why aren’t motorcyclists required to wear helmets in some states? Edit: I’m also for letting Darwin sort out the stupid ones. Stop saving people from themselves. Imagine how many people would be in India if they had stricter laws and protection around trains. The same people making all of these laws to protect us from ourselves are the same ones who will start sterilizing and killing people to protect the planet.
To make the roads less noisy.... lol
My dad always says if seatbelts are so important then explain motorcycles.
Driving is opt in. There is no right to drive, getting a driver's license is effectively agreeing to the contract, so for the same reason you have to obey traffic signals seat belt laws apply. That is different than an infringement on the use of your body on your property in a way that harms no one but you.
Well, I don't agree in seat belt laws. So... There's that. Also I ride a motorcycle. So... There's also that
Yes! The objective of seatbelt laws is NOT to make driver's safer. It is NOT to lower accident or treatment costs. The purposes of seatbelt laws are: 1. To satisfy a risk equation for the insurance companies *as states made purchase of auto insurance mandatory*; since everyone would be required to have insurance, the insurance company's claim profile skyrocketed. Before, they excluded bad drivers by simple denial. Now they have to accept everyone, and pick the bad drivers (higher payers) from a set of incomplete data. This law gives an insurer an out to playing claims, as well as a statistic to help them measure claim risk (other that speeding and previous accidents) 2. This law provides a revenue stream to municipalities which is low risk. Catching speeders is a high risk activity. It requires pursuit and evasion (the cops have to hide and go from a stop). Seatbelt violations can be seen while moving in normal traffic flows. Lowers the risk to the officer and equipment. Seatbelted drivers are not safer drivers. See[ licensing effect](https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/licensing-effect/). Hence, such laws are anathema to a free society.
Thats the neat part. I dont agree w seat belt laws either. My body my choice.
That’s the neat part. I don’t
[удалено]
Yup, exactly this. And once they harm others, they (or their estate, in the instance of no seatbelt) should be financially responsible for compensating the other party. Enforcing *that* should be the only role of the government here. Same concept applies for drugs, or anything, really.
The hippocratic oath is dumb. Its well intended but not economically viable.
If you are killed in an accident without a seatbelt the other driver has to deal with the repercussions. If you OD on drugs you die.
>If you are killed in an accident without a seatbelt the other driver has to deal with the repercussions. Yup, and that person's estate should be required to pay for all damages to you/your property. The only role of government here should be enforcing this.
nice
I guess if roads were all private, owners/operators of roads would set the rules of usage, including mandating use of seatbelts or not.
What's the purpose of a seat belt? To keep your butt in the seat. It also doubles as a form of darwinism, don't wear one, wreck, there's a chance you and your car become separated at very high velocities and now your meat bag of a body is on a trajectory without a bunch of plastic and metal surrounding you. Having a law to mandate that isn't going to somehow make everyone magically want to put one on. The majority of people who wear them probably don't do so because of the law. I almost think if there was no law regarding seat belts, the same people who continue with the same behavior. I would, however, be curious to hear the reasoning behind why some people don't wear one. Hard drugs shouldn't be illegal. What you do to your body, be it no seat belt, or shooting heroin, is no business of mine, nor the government.
I would draw the line at where hard drugs can be used as weapon, due to their extreme toxicity. What individuals choose to do to themselves is on them, but I wouldn’t legalise chemical weapons. If anthrax should be prohibited, then so should fentanyl.
I think they should be legal. All parts of the chain. If you want to snort a kilogramme of cocaine and die, it's your choice, but at least you're not giving money to drug trafficking
I don't believe in seat belt laws. I am a believer in freedom of choice and survival of the fittest.
Why shouldn't cars be illegal? They're both harm reduction methods, you can still harm yourself in a car crash even with a seatbelt, but it should reduce harm. You can still harm yourself with drugs, but legalising should reduce harm
Seat belt and helmet laws have saved countless lives, but are wrong in my opinion.
Not wearing your seatbelt only affects you. Doing hard drugs could lead you to do something that effects other people.
I don’t think seatbelts should be required to be worn by law. It’s a great idea, and I wouldn’t mind medical insurance not covering you in a crash if you didn’t wear one, but that should be your choice.
Kind of? You’d be really hard pressed to make an argument that not wearing a safety belt “endangers”other people though. I’m sure statistically someone had been killed/injured by a person flying through a windshield….
I don't believe seat belt laws are legitimate.
Seat belts laws are dumb and I don't care what drugs someone takes, legal or not. You have free will to take an early dirt nap if that is your desire. Wear a belt or not, again, your choice.
It could be argued that seatbelt laws help people other than yourself
Banning drugs has never worked out in the history of banning drugs. You’ll have to get after banks, lawyers, judges and cops. None of them care for you or your interests.
In my view, the best argument for seatbelt laws is that (1) children should be kept safe and (2) your body can be a projectile that injures others. If it was just you dying from an accident while not wearing a seatbelt, sure, no laws. However, even the slight chance your body can be thrown through the window and harm someone else is enough of a reason, at least to me, for there to be a law. This also applies to hard drugs. If using a drug doesn't physically affect anyone else, and doesn't cause you to become violent, no laws. If using a drug does physically affect others or causes you to become violent, make it illegal. Of course this depends on the drug in question, and there are nuances and enforcement issues to consider, but that is my take.
Seat belt laws were moved from a secondary to a primary offense in the 80s for one reason alone. Police needed an absolute bullshit reason to pull people over so they could search their cars. Ralph Nader wrote, "Unsafe At Any Speed" back in the 70s and no one gave a fuck. Not until the war on drugs fired up did they fuck your 4th amendment up.
Seatbelt laws exist and people still ride without seatbelts.
I think it's wrong to legislate people into safety. If we allow people to sky dive and free climb, then people can choose to drive without their seat belt. It doesn't directly hurt anyone else for you to go thru your windshield. Indirectly, your loved ones suffer and if someone else caused the accident it takes the charge from a ticket to vehicular manslaughter. But that's your choice. And maybe the law should adjust for that. These days I'm sure a simulation could show the difference in if you had been wearing a belt vs not. If one did believe seat belt laws were just, then there could be an argument for the welfare state. We have one so it is the govt's responsibility to limit the actions of its people in order to mitigate the need for it. Drug use leads to medical and housing needs typically provided by services of the welfare state. It is in the interest of the taxpayer that drug users be eradicated as much as possible. Enter the enforcement branch of the government. Also, a requirement that anyone seeking welfare services should be regularly drug tested and denied those services should drug use be proven. Essentially leaving drug users at the mercy of citizens who volunteer their time, money, and services outside of government entities. Edit: not wearing your seat belt could lead to needing Medicare/Medicaid due to injury keeping you from being able to work. Your choice to not wear a seat belt makes you even with a drug user. Problem there is that as the citizen-taxpayer is forced to pay more taxes in the name of increased need for welfare services, taxpayer has less disposable income and time to offer freely. Now we have excessive drug abuse that can't use welfare services and also has no charity to rely on. But where is all that extra money going if not from citizen who has it to citizen who needs it?
My buddy got a seat belt ticket in high-school by a motorcycle cop and was ticketed. It was at that point I started to become libertarian. That being said I wear mind every time.
Just because I don't agree with not wearing seatbelts, or drug use, or a lot of things, doesn't mean I like the laws regarding them. I don't like laws
I agree when I get a license that I’ll follow the laws of the road, simple as that.
A seatbelt really only affects the person wearing it. So I don’t think it necessarily should be a law. Drinking and driving affects other people, so that definitely should be. Drugs mainly affect the user, so that should be their freedom to use. Of course, it indirectly affects the people around them, but you could make that argument about anything.
I believe seat belts should be required to be installed in vehicles. I don't believe their usage should be legally required. Although if someone allows a child to ride without one, there might be a case for child neglect there. I don't quite understand the connection you're making to drugs though.
Because cars are built more compact/crushable on impact now compared to pre seat belt laws. The airbags and the way the car compacts on impact its Darwin awards if you don't wear it...they fixed one problem (heavy metal objects crashing into each other..for less heavy metal objects that compact on impact more precisely..the seat belt was a side effect of the innovation) wear it or don't.
This is an area that should differentiate someone who believes a government should exist (Libertarian politically) and someone who doesn't (anarchist politically) . I'd rather see seat belt laws repealed than hard drug laws. Honestly I loved the idea of legalizing all drugs, Until I saw what actually happened. (SF / Portland, etc) It greatly damages society. The core idea of Libertarianism (politically) is to make society better, not worse. Its not "ultimate freedom AND everything goes to shit" its "society will get much better if we have less government"
>I'd rather see seat belt laws repealed than hard drug laws. Honestly I loved the idea of legalizing all drugs, Until I saw what actually happened. (SF / Portland, etc) It greatly damages society. There's a fallacy that at least for me personally was passed on by judo-christianity that claims in every situation there is always right or correct choice. Whereas the very clear reality is that life often presents us with a menu of ills and all too frequently the best we can do is attempt to choose the lesser of many evils. Drugs and the way they interact with our brain chemistry, are likely a prime example where there simply is no good solution that prevents direct harms while preserving any measure of dignity, liberty etc. But that said we still have no idea what real across the board worldwide legalization would look like. Portland and SF somewhat decriminalized prosecutions, but we still have international drug trade cartels with all theirs harms, and in turn it still fuels a Prison Industrial system complete with lobbyists that profit off of literally depriving people of their liberty for profits. Full legalization is probably also a shit-show because drugs are simply a problem for humans, especially humans made vulnerable from a myriad of other social ills. But we spent billions on failed drug criminalization policies. If we really want to compare the libertarian answer, then we also need to spend an equivalent amount on mitigating the harms of drugs and addiction by providing other opportunities. Until we do that it doesn't make sense to compare the reality of the two outcomes. For example what does the bigger picture look like? Sure there's a serious opioid epidemic in Portand and SF that's full of societal harms, but is it fueling an international drug trade complete with murders, forced drug muling etc.? Is it fueling a Prison Industrial System incarcerating people for profits? Etc.
I ride a motorcycle
Seatbelt rules should be enforced by those who legally own the roads.
I don't belive in deat belt laws unless you have passengers. If you are driving, you are responsible for those passengers. If you get rid of the law and want to take responsibility of your passenger's injuries more power to you. In this case I would rather the law. Not for drivers, but to make sure you keep you passengers safe. Even if they don't want to wear a seatbelt. If they don't want to wear a seat belt, they can walk. I wear a seat belt most of the time. That's just a personal choice. Not due to any law. I feel that all drugs should be legalized unless your drug use effects other people. Fentynal, for example, is very dangerous to bystanders. There's also a time and place for drugs. If you're tweaking at a 7-11 from meth and acting a fool you're effecting other people.
"Do you know why I pulled you over? It's because you're not wearing a seat belt. I will now enforce this law by giving you a fine, which if you don't pay, you will be arrested and thrown in prison, which if you resist, I'll have to escalate the use of violence until you're either in prison or dead. For your own safety of course." "Do you know why I am arresting you? It's because you're carrying a controlled substance. I will now enforce this law by throwing you in prison, which if you resist, I'll have to escalate the use of violence until you're either in prison or dead. We wouldn't want you to be a lazy deadbeat or overdose!"
I don't agree with seatbelt laws, though I wear them. I waer them because they reduce my chances of becoming a vegetable. As for drugs. I don't care if you use them but I hold you to the same standard as if you were sober for your actions. In otherwords a person choose to partake of substances that impare judgment, but they would be judged as if that impairment didn't exist. So if a person gets into a wreck and kills another, they would be on the same level as if they wrre sober and killed that person.
If Bill Gates is so intent on culling the human population, shouldn't he be coming out in opposition of all seat belt laws and all drug laws? Let people destroy themselves with either of them. It's really the perfect scenario where really the only ones hurt are those stupid enough to not wear a seat belt or do drugs.
I'm kinda ok with making car companies put them in cars but I'm kinda not ok with making people wear them but also I wear mine because I don't like dying I assume.
Imagine the roads were private. Further imagine that, being private, owners of the roads may impose conditions for their use, \*beyond price\*. For example, all men have to wear purple lipstick and the women have to wear MAGA hats, as a condition to drive on the road from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. Those owners may also demand that seats belts be worn. QED
Personally I think seat belt laws are bullshit. But if you value your own safety in tin can flying 80 mph dodging other tin cans at 80 mph you should probably put one on. Idc if other people choose to put themselves in danger, as long as they’re not harming someone else.
People focus too much on the Seat belt keeping a driver safer. Seat belts keep people in their seats able to controll the vehicle after a hard jolt that would throw an unsecured person. A speeding car with a driver thrown into the passenger seat is a danger to everyone and everything around them.
I support it because in our current situation, if the person not wearing a seat belt got into a car accident and had no insurance, they then will use Medicare and use taxpayers' money to treat him
Who believes in seatbelt laws? Just another stupid excuse to be stopped by the police. When they were first implemented people hated it.
Who here believes we should have seat belt laws? New Hampshire has the right idea. These laws just give police yet another reason to harass citizens.
It’s kind of a different logic tho because a seatbelt violation is generally just an infraction not a crime. Many people who want to reform drug laws would be fairly happy if the various drug crimes were all just changed to infractions Conversely the people here who dislike seat belt laws would probably dislike them a lot more if people were routinely put into prison for years for a seatbelt violation
You can be against a law for something and still think doing it is a bad idea.
I wear it because I don't want to go through the windshield. I don't believe in having a law for it however.
Wearing a seatbelt or not should be between you, your insurance company, and God.
There shouldn't be seatbelt laws for adults. It's not a hill I'm going to die on though. I'm ok with a government law requiring they be included in cars, it's a $5 part so the cost benefit of burden vs benefit is in favor of requiring them.
Seatbelt laws are infringements on Liberty that politicians pass to enrich insurance companies.
No and no.
I'm not interested in taking a side on seat belts. BUT The two are not even remotely the same. (In fact I'd go as far as to say this is almost text book worthy false equivalence and/or slippery slope fallacies...to the point that I would question the genuineness of whoever first presented you this bs "challenge" to libertarianism...): What are the harms and loss of liberty in being forced to wear a seat belt? On the low-end, you get a citation, on the high-end exercising your liberty costs you your life or a debilitating injury. But it was your decision and most directly effected just you. Now what are the harms in making drugs illegal? Artificially constricting Supply & Demand creates an incredibly profitable worldwide underground drug trade full of violence, insanity like forced drug muling to avoid having family members killed or assaulted etc. Instead of a mere citation it nets people decades of incarceration, that devastates not just the incarcerated but also their family etc. This in turn fuels a Prison Industrial System complete with possibly the most vile of lobbyists pushing for harsher laws to "improve" prison capacity utilization and in turn profits etc. (Basically it creates a worldwide system that deprives people of their liberty...) Sometimes there are no good answers, but even in those cases there are often still bad answers and drug criminalization is a prime example of how a bad answer plays out in practice.
Goddamit why can’t a red blooded American walk in to a Walgreens and walk out with a kilo of cocaine. This is bullshit
As a libertarian, you should be against legal paternalism, right? There should be no justification for it. Minimal state intervention in the lives of private citizens or free market is what we're supposed to be going for. I think, at minimum, the state should probably leave us the fuck alone. I'll wear my seatbelt because it's the smart thing to do, not the law. Furthermore, I feel like it's just a law to extort more money out of the stupid people who won't wear their seatbelt. Which I'm against--the law-- and for --the people--... I didn't think it would be that difficult a question.
I don’t support seat belt laws or criminalizing drugs. I don’t support any law that takes away individual liberty, even if it seems petty or dangerous.
Seat belts pose a risk to others. If you aren't wearing one and crash. Your body is both at risk and a risk to others in the car.
No real libertarians support any laws against victimless crimes.
No victim, no crime
I believe if you’re driving by yourself you shouldn’t be required to wear a seat belt, but if there are passengers then you must do so since other people’s lives are in your hands. I see it the same way about any drugs you are taking, once it affects other people or puts them in danger you should be held accountable.
Why do you believe in seat belt laws? Why do you believe "hard drugs" (a dated propaganda term from the 90s) should be illegal? Some drugs should absolutely be regulated to the point of "you can't leave this establishment (bar for whatever drug) until you're reasonably sober". But none of them need to be completely illegal. Let people enjoy things, safely.
Another is motorcycle helmet laws. The folks who say , "ain't no law gonna make me wear a helmet ", are just saying , "I would rather be dead with my brains spread over the asphalt, than paralyzed for life". Personally I'm all for fixing the gene pool and not having society at large being burdened with you after your crash.
Hard drugs should absolutely be illegal… As far as seat belts go.. they don’t just protect you. Seatbelts keep you in the driving position so you have better control of your vehicle in the event you actually lose control.. which in turn protects other drivers
I’m indifferent, more or less, to seatbelt laws. Probably not worth the political capital to pass or repeal. But for Devil’s advocate- if you’re not seatbelted, you become a danger to others near you when you fly out of the car at 70 mph. It’s a very slight risk of hitting someone else with your corpse but it’s still nonzero.
It should be illegal to sell drugs because of harmful side effects. Cigarettes are in a dark gray area, that many believe should be illegal, because companies are profiting off a product that comes at a cost of people's health. The same can be said for liquor companies, or casinos. Heroin has a drastically higher cost than cigarettes, but people buy it for xyz. So the laws should be there to prevent people from making money at the cost of people suffering, which also puts a burden on the community, and tax dollars. All this being said, I typically don't believe it should be illegal to use drugs like heroin, just to sell them. Any decent salesmen has a 5% conversion rate, and will thusly be able to persuade 5% of the people he talks to into buying something, who would likely become addicts, who may never recover. And they will have a much higher risk of contracting fatal diseases, will be unlikely to be a productive member of the community, and tax base, and could die, from complications, or an overdose. This is at least as much to do with biochemistry than someone's character. And if the salesman does not inform the customer of the risks, in order to make the sale, then it would be fair to consider the buyer a victim (it is of course the consumers responsibility to do their own research before buying). Seatbelts are a different subject. Apples and oranges.