Seat Belt Laws - The Latest Ad Campaign

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 7, 2005 02:46
VIEWED: 9635
PAGE 1 of 1

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 30, 2005 1:28 AM

Is anybody else getting a little fed up with the in-your-face ad campaign currently running on the media pipeline? It seems everywhere I go I have to hear about this nonsense. This is one of the reasons I hate insurance companies so much. They get these little abusive laws passed - that's bad enough - but then they have to gloat about it. Makes me wanna holler!@#$@!%@#

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KNIBBLET

Monday, May 30, 2005 2:17 AM

I have a simple seat belt rule. If you're in my car, you wear one. If you won't wear one, walk.

I believe that not wearing a belt is just a little bit dumber than sticking your tongue in a light socket.

My sister always spouts the same insanely stupid line against seat belts... "If I'm in a crash and my car is on fire or underwater, I don't want to die because my seat belt jammed."

My usual response is, "I guess being knocked unconcious and dying from drowning or burning to death is preferrable to actually being able to get out of the car."

Of course, this sister is a crack ho and burned what little brains she had to hell and back years ago.

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 30, 2005 3:02 AM

?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SGTGUMP

Monday, May 30, 2005 3:04 AM

Actually, I don't wear seatbelts because it is a law, I wear them for the sheer common sense. Seatbelt laws are stupid, and yes we all know that it is a nationwide law now so the ad campaigns do kind of rub it in your face.

I recently heard about a young man that was protesting the law by not wearing his seatbelt, and who was later killed in a car crash. I guess some people just don't understand that I, like many other people, don't do things because there is a law. The argument that the law must be followed by virtue of the fact that it is a law is one that history will easily defeat. I also resent the Govmnt being so concerned for my well being. I don't like to trade my freedoms for 'safety'.

edit: Insurance companies are no more than legal extortionists.

SERGEANTX

Monday, May 30, 2005 3:25 AM

If I'm with friends who wear seat belts, or find myself particularly concerned about highway conditions, I'll put one on. But most of the time, I don't wear a seat belt. Is that stupid? Probably, but it's only one of the many stupid things I do on a daily basis.

For me, it's just a matter of personality. I'm not the sort of person who enjoys living in a perpetual state of insecurity. I skip over all kinds of precautions that other people swear by, and sometimes I pay for it. But it's my business.

I don't generally make a big fuss about seat belt laws. It's mostly just another bullshit law I ignore. But, regretably, I've gotten used to living my life like a criminal. I avoid cops as a rule because it seems I'm always breaking a law or two.

Sometimes I think the reason they push laws like this is to create more criminals. A government has little power over law-abiding citizens. But I admit that's a bit paranoid. A more likely reason is that these laws save insurance companies gobs of money. Combine that with the fact that there are plenty of people eager to shove their own insecurities down other people's throats and you get bad legislation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

MACBAKER

Monday, May 30, 2005 3:15 PM

Seatbelt ads don't bother me. My opinion is; anyone that doesn't wear a seatbelt is an idiot anyway, so I hope the ads make them think twice about it. Find another less moronic way to be a rebel!!!!

To those that don't wear seatbelts, please fill out a donor card, so that your foolishness at least has the potential to help others.

The ad that is torquing me off, is the guilt trip GM Onstar commercial with the kids, saying parents that really cared about their loved ones, wouldn't drive a car without this service. Funny how the new Chevy Colbalt has an abyssmal 2 star side impact rating, but doesn't come with Onstar standard.

I'll stick with my two non-GM built cars, with 5 star safety ratings and a cell phone with 911 on speed dial.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

SGTGUMP

Monday, May 30, 2005 9:44 PM

So the commercials and the law don't bother you, but the OnStar thing does? How long do you really think it will be before there is a law that makes it mandatory for you to have OnStar, or a similar device, in your car all the time? There is already a precedent in place for forcing people to do such a thing.

10 Years from now, when you are bitching on a message board(hopefully still this one) about how you think that the constant OnStar commercials suck and someone tells you that you're an idiot for not using one, will that bother you?

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
Seatbelt ads don't bother me. My opinion is; anyone that doesn't wear a seatbelt is an idiot anyway, so I hope the ads make them think twice about it. Find another less moronic way to be a rebel!!!!

To those that don't wear seatbelts, please fill out a donor card, so that your foolishness at least has the potential to help others.

The ad that is torquing me off, is the guilt trip GM Onstar commercial with the kids, saying parents that really cared about their loved ones, wouldn't drive a car without this service. Funny how the new Chevy Colbalt has an abyssmal 2 star side impact rating, but doesn't come with Onstar standard.

I'll stick with my two non-GM built cars, with 5 star safety ratings and a cell phone with 911 on speed dial.

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

RUE

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 1:13 AM

Quote:
I'm not the sort of person who enjoys living in a perpetual state of insecurity. I skip over all kinds of precautions that other people swear by, and sometimes I pay for it.

This just reminds me of something a friend did once. He was out in a vehicle, on a Lake Erie beach, in early winter. It was a cold, cloudy, dreary, blustery day. No one was around, the beach was empty of everything and everyone. He needed to back up his car, started to turn around to look out the back window, and then thought - what the hell, just for once I'm NOT going to look. So he put the car in reverse, hit the gas, and crunch. He nailed a piling.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 1:32 AM

You left of the most important line in the paragraph!

Quote:
...But it's my business.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

PIRATEJENNY

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:54 AM

Its really all just a money racket,

RUE

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:17 AM

Quote:
...But it's my business.

Actually, in his case it was a company car. I just thought the connection was funny - here's a guy, ALWAYS does the careful thing, is ruled, one might say, by a perpetual state of uncertainty. And the one time he decides it might conceivably be safe to throw aside normal precaution .......

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:45 AM

heh...yup. Sounds like something a friend of mine used to say. "When you least expect it.... expect it."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

BIKISDAD

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
Actually, I don't wear seatbelts because it is a law, I wear them for the sheer common sense. Seatbelt laws are stupid, and yes we all know that it is a nationwide law now so the ad campaigns do kind of rub it in your face.

This mostly sums up my thoughts. I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt - now pretty much out of habit, but it is a habit derived from common sense. HOWEVER, if I ever have a good reason to drive my car WITHOUT wearing my seatbelt, it really ticks me off that some stormtrooper will be giving me a ticket because of some mindless, inflexible "nanny state" law.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

MACBAKER

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
So the commercials and the law don't bother you, but the OnStar thing does? How long do you really think it will be before there is a law that makes it mandatory for you to have OnStar, or a similar device, in your car all the time? There is already a precedent in place for forcing people to do such a thing.

10 Years from now, when you are bitching on a message board(hopefully still this one) about how you think that the constant OnStar commercials suck and someone tells you that you're an idiot for not using one, will that bother you?

Nice try, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. If the service came free (no monthly charges) with all cars, as a safety feature like seatbelts, fine, make it a law. I really don't care. Forcing everyone to pay for such a service with some law would be virtually impossible. Phones in homes save lives too, but no one is required by law to have phone service.

Onstar is one of those "I've fallen and I can't get up" services. If it gives some people peace of mind to have it, fine, but it's not a service that can be required and/or forced on anyone, unless (like 911) it becomes a free service. I just think it's pathetic that the same company that tries guilting people into buying cars with this service, also puts out a car like the Cobalt that has an abysmal 2 star side impact rating. Sorry, but I'd rather own a car without Onstar, with a 5 star crash test rating, than a car with the service that has such poor passenger protection.

I am mystified though, how any intelligent person would have any rational reason not to wear a seatbelt, or would have a problem with a law requiring such use. I guess the same people that don't like this law, also think they should be able to drink and drive or think helmet laws are stupid (donorcycle riders). My bad, I guess common sense laws are too draconian for some! LMAO!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
I am mystified though, how any intelligent person would have any rational reason not to wear a seatbelt, or would have a problem with a law requiring such use. I guess the same people that don't like this law, also think they should be able to drink and drive or think helmet laws are stupid (donorcycle riders). My bad, I guess common sense laws are too draconian for some! LMAO!

Well, I'm msytified why any intelligent person wants to give up their right, and responsibility, to make decisions concerning matters of personal safety. Those of us arguing against these laws don't have some kind of deathwish as you are insinuating, we just see the logic behind these kind of laws and recognize it as a dangerous precedent.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

MACBAKER

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 5:55 PM

Quote:
Well, I'm msytified why any intelligent person wants to give up their right, and responsibility, to make decisions concerning matters of personal safety. Those of us arguing against these laws don't have some kind of deathwish as you are insinuating, we just see the logic behind these kind of laws and recognize it as a dangerous precedent.

What kind of dangerous precedent? The same laws that require that your brake lights work? Or DUI laws? Laws that require people with corrected vision to wear their glasses when driving? WTF? How do these common sense laws set any dangerous precedent? The only logic behind these laws I see is public safety.

If you choose not to follow the seatbelt law, fine, that's your right. Just expect to pay the price, just like anyone would driving under the influence, or operating a vehicle with a broken brake light, or not following the restrictions on their licence (glasses, night blindness, etc.). If they get pulled over, they will get a ticket just like you would for refusing to follow the seatbelt law. What's the difference? What dangerous precedent does this law set, that the others I've mentioned didn't? Or, is it your opinion that all of these laws set a dangerous precedent? Are all public safety laws too draconain for your rebel soul? Too

bad!

I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.

WORKEROFEVIL

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:51 PM

I approve of the seat belt laws because I truly believe they will save lives. However, I do think at least one of the commercials is really dumb. A truck's driving on a road and a LEO steps into the road and talks about buckling up and how it saves lives. The driver sees the guy in the road, hits the brakes, and his truck repeatedly flips over. That commercial never makes me think "Wow, I better buckle up." I always think "That guy should have just hit the dumbass who was standing in the middle of the road." So, I like the law, but some of the commercials (as most commercials are) are just stupid.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MacBaker:
What kind of dangerous precedent? The same laws that require that your brake lights work? Or DUI laws? Laws that require people with corrected vision to wear their glasses when driving? WTF? How do these common sense laws set any dangerous precedent? The only logic behind these laws I see is public safety.

If you choose not to follow the seatbelt law, fine, that's your right. Just expect to pay the price, just like anyone would driving under the influence, or operating a vehicle with a broken brake light, or not following the restrictions on their licence (glasses, night blindness, etc.). If they get pulled over, they will get a ticket just like you would for refusing to follow the seatbelt law. What's the difference?

Ok, the difference is rather large. It's been explained several times in this argument. The laws you're referencing above limit actions that could harm others. It gets to the heart of why we have laws - so we can all get along in a community. Seat belt laws, on the other hand, outlaw actions that have little or no effect on others. They step into your shoes and decide whats best for you. Even if it's against your will.

Quote:
What dangerous precedent does this law set, that the others I've mentioned didn't? Or, is it your opinion that all of these laws set a dangerous precedent? Are all public safety laws too draconain for your rebel soul? Too bad!

The dangerous precedent is acceptance of the notion that decisions about your personal safety and well-being are no longer yours to make, but are subject to a majority vote. Not only is this a gross expansion of government authority, it's dumb. History has shown far too many instances where the majority is just plain wrong.

Also, saying someone has the 'right' to do something and then suffer the consequences, when those consequences are legal punishment - well... that twists my brain into a pretzel. You clearly aren't comprehending the definition of a political 'right'. The whole point of a 'right' is that it's something you can do free from interference by government.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 2:02 AM

Anyone know why the title of this thread got changed in the 'Real World Discussions' section? It just says RE: now

EDIT: uh, nevermind. changed back. weird.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 3:12 AM

Of course the standard answer to that is to say: should your decision to not use a seat belt end up with you disabled and draining the government coffers, it then becomes a social issue. Any thoughts on that?

SHINY

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Anyone know why the title of this thread got changed in the 'Real World Discussions' section? It just says RE: now

EDIT: uh, nevermind. changed back. weird.

Odd. If you see it again, let me know.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 3:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Of course the standard answer to that is to say: should your decision to not use a seat belt end up with you disabled and draining the government coffers, it then becomes a social issue. Any thoughts on that?

I think that's a bit of a ruse. Isn't it debatable that not wearing a seatbelt just makes death the more likely outcome, rather than surviving with serious injuries? It might even be reasonable to argue that wearing seat belts would be more likely to produce the scenario you mention.

Either way, I don't think those are valid justifications for legislation. We could make an endless list of individual decisions that could be said to indirectly cost society money (having children, overeating, having unprotected sex, etc, etc,.. ) but do we really want to go there? It just seems like you could construct an argument like that to make pretty much anything illegal.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

STAGGERLY

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 4:18 AM

Why not just wear the seat belt AND a t-shirt that says, "you're not the boss of me!" Then everyone'll know you're just arbitrarily rebellious, and not a doofus with no common sense.

-----------------------
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 4:36 AM

uh.....

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 6:24 AM

No, because we have a country that refuses to get rid of flaming Darwinian idiots - even when they did it to themselves. I know a couple of nurses who have stories about Tommy (and the like). Tommy is this guy who was left after a drug overdose with no ID and was found comatose in complete catatonia. He is a ward of the state and the hospital foots the bill in caring for him. The nurses has been talking about him for some 15 years now, they feed him, change him, shaves him... What they can't do is get rid of him, they have to be responsible for caring for this idiot when there are much much more people on the floor and not enough nurses on each shift (yeah, that's another story altogether)...

Where do seatbelts come in? Seatbelts do wonders in lower speed crash. They aren't just there to hold you inside the car - i.e. prevent you from flying thru the windshield. They also do at least 2 other things. In lower speeds, you might "submarine", depending on the type of seat you have, how you have the seat configured and how you are sitting in it - that's when your body slides towards the floorboard and you loose your legs or have you lower spine crushed. It also allows your head and body to decelerate over matter of feet instead of having it decelerate into the dashboard.

These things happened frequently enough that people's mothers hated having to take care of their imbecilic (now permanently an imbecile) kids.

If you don't wear seat belts, please make sure to move to a state/country where they can get rid of these permanent imbeciles and have a durable power of attorney to help show you the way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Staggerly:
Why not just wear the seat belt AND a t-shirt that says, "you're not the boss of me!" Then everyone'll know you're just arbitrarily rebellious, and not a doofus with no common sense.

-----------------------
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 6:50 PM

I don't understand why everyone--even people who don't wear seatbelts--assume that wearing seatbelts is ALWAYS safer than not wearing one, and not wearing seatbelts is ALWAYS a dumber choice. This is simply not true. Here are some common sense facts.

1. Sometimes seatbelts do save lives. This we know. I won't elaborate.

2. Sometimes, whether you wear or don't wear a seatbelt does not make any bit of difference. If you get squished going 70 miles an hour, you're squished, seatbelt or not. My husband used to work as an EMT in a major metropolitan area. He says much of the time, seatbelts don't make a difference at all.

3. Sometimes, seatbelts actually HURT your chances of surviving. They prevent you from reacting quickly or from getting out altogether. My hub heard firsthand from another EMT who watched a boy burnt alive, trapped in a car on fire. My sister-in-law was in a crash where a telephone pole fell down on top of the driver's seat. Because she wasn't strapped, she was able to dive quickly into the foot compartment of the passenger side before the roof was crushed. She had to be cut out, but she lived with very few injuries. Had she been strapped, she would have died. I can go on and on with examples, but you guys get the idea.

4. People are not dummies. Seatbelt tests are done on immobile, unreacting dummies. Unless they are sleeping, people can react. They can move and dive and jump out and take all manner of action to save their lives. In an accident, people actually have the ability to slow down time, such that 2 seconds seem like 2 minutes. They have that extra time in which to better position themselves. In some accidents, there is nothing to do and they might as well be dummies. But in other accidents, this ability to react can save lives--and seatbelts hinder.

On top of all these facts, there is the theory of risk homeostasis. It says that when forced to reduce risk (e.g. seatbelts or helmets), people will engage in riskier behavior to return to their comfortable level of risk. For example, someone wearing a seatbelt or helmet would drive faster than if he didn't. I haven't seen the research, but a psychiatrist friend tells me there is an increasing amount of evidence supporting this theory. I've witnessed it in my 4 year old, who rides her bike much more recklessly when she is wearing a helmet. In her words, "This helmet will keep me from getting hurt, so I can do whatever I want." Perfect example of risk homeostasis.

So, the fact is that seatbelts are not a one-size-fits-all-accidents solution for preventing injuries. There are advantages and disadvantages. Statistics and odds can be subjectively interpreted to whatever position you want. This is NOT a clear cut choice for everyone, every time. Ultimately, people need to be able to choose for themselves what kind of security measure they want to take, based on their driving habits and mental alertness.

There, stepping down from *my* soap box...

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

RUE

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 7:29 PM

SergeantX:

Quote:
Either way, I don't think those are valid justifications for legislation. We could make an endless list of individual decisions that could be said to indirectly cost society money (having children, overeating, having unprotected sex, etc, etc,.. ) but do we really want to go there? It just seems like you could construct an argument like that to make pretty much anything illegal.

To some extent, I'm actually with you on this issue. Taking the pro-law argument to extremes, here are some things that might happen: women get arrested for drinking b/c they might be pregnant; women are excluded from jobs b/c they might get pregnant; alcohol, cigarettes and risky sports are banned altogether; pl with incurable transmissible diseases are physically labeled in some way, etc. On the other hand, there is some validity in saying that these decisions, made individually, do cost society resources in the aggregate. I'm just wondering how you would address that fact.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 7:29 PM

I would agree that seatbelts by themselves don't produce a static behaviour and save lifes every single time in every single instance. But that's sort of like saying "Don't wear condoms since it doesn't protect you from disease exactly 100% of the time in every single situation", or "Go ahead and lick the toilet seat, it won't make you sick every single time".

Some of the examples that you provided were also a bit pedestrian. I'm not arguing your EMT friends didn't make his observations, but this is also the type of "statistical" or observation nonsense that makes bad science. One thing that comes immediately to mind is whether your friend were call to every single car accident or whether his sampling is representative or all car accidents. It might be that he isn't called to accidents where the deaths are forgone conclusions. All I saying is there is a good chance that the sampling is skewed.

On the expose' that seatbelts can hurt your chance of survival, it clearly could happen if the person trapped were in a non-moving vehicle to begin with and were under some sort of duress to not be able to unrestrain themselves from the seatbelt. Clearly if the vehicle had been moving and if they were unstrained to begin with, their odds of being intact and awake enough to jump out of the vehicle is questionable - aside from having been thrown clear of the vehicle to begin with.

You mention of risk homeostatis is something to consider further though.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

SHINY

Thursday, June 2, 2005 12:11 AM

>>that these decisions, made individually, do cost society resources in the aggregate. I'm just wondering how you would address that fact.<<

* about to stir up a huge bunch of worms... *

This is one concern I have with many libertarian thinkers/leaders/politicians -- they seem to be satisfied with "just sue them" as an answer to many of these negative externalities (pollution and other environmental issues, grazing rights and other 'tragedy of the commons' issues, market failures/abuse of monopoly power, etc.)

There needs to be some reasonable middle-ground between anarchy and fascism...

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 2, 2005 12:27 AM

Agreed, Shiny. I'm certainly not one who sees private property and damage litigation as the be-all-end-all of public good. There does need to be a middle ground, but the supposed costs of people not wearing seat-belts don't seem to me a serious enough concern to warrant taking away personal decision making.

To me, the bottom line with seat belt laws is that they are based on the notion that it's the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves.

The costs to society and other supporting arguments seem secondary at best and wouldn't even be an issue without first accepting the above premise.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SHINY

Thursday, June 2, 2005 12:41 AM

>>
The costs to society and other supporting arguments seem secondary at best
<<

I agree with you in this case. The protect-you-from-yourself seems to be the driving (excuse the pun) factor in the seat belt laws, which I personally think does go too far in the "Nanny State" direction. I do support, however, government requirements for manufacturers to equip cars with seat belts/air bags/etc. Whether people choose to use them is pretty much up to them.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

JASONZZZ

Thursday, June 2, 2005 12:56 AM

There is also a problem with the concept of "personal responsibility" in general is though. If you look at it, USA - and the world in general - has been changing from a family centric and geographic centric society of one where everyone moves around all of the place. The idea of a common framework is in shambles when people, kids, relatives, friends don't hang around in the same geographic location and share the growing and understanding of a common framework. This coupled with the increasing divorce rates leaves people with none-to-nil really solid social surroundings. One could imply that there is a greater lack of common agreement on what the social norms are - without that common understanding including what "personal responsibilities" are, people can fall back to hopefully their early childhood teachings. But that's also falling by the wayside as well, what with most parents spending less than 2 hours together with their kids each day as they are growing up - there isn't a lot left for parental guidance in many of these cases...

I am not saying either way whether all of these things leading to what we have are good or bad, but the result is just a greater lack of understanding on how each of us are suppose to behave in any given setting. (and you can argue that you should just *be yourself*, but look at what being completely American has led to a greater part of these misunderstandings in the rest of the world).

Anyways, because there is this growing lack of a general norm, people are even more apt to push for a bigger Nanny-state to produce this artificial set of overall norms.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

RUE

Thursday, June 2, 2005 1:45 AM

Quote:
To me, the bottom line with seat belt laws is that they are based on the notion that it's the government's responsibility to protect people from themselves.

The costs to society and other supporting arguments seem secondary at best and wouldn't even be an issue without first accepting the above premise.

I'm not sure costs are secondary.

What you do to yourself you do to society IF it carries the costs of your actions. Are you saying that society should have responsibility but no authority?

PS This is not a trick question. The logic leads to this box. I'm hoping you can find a way out. I'd be happy to follow.

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, June 2, 2005 3:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But that's sort of like saying "Don't wear condoms since it doesn't protect you from disease exactly 100% of the time in every single situation", or "Go ahead and lick the toilet seat, it won't make you sick every single time".

Waaait a minute. I never said, "Don't use seatbelts since they don't protect you every time." What I said was, "Let people choose for themselves, since seatbelts don't protect you every time." To go with your condom analogy, that would be like saying, "Since condoms don't always protect all people all the time, individuals--not the govt--should decide if condoms are best for them or if they want to use an alternative means for protection."

Quote:
I'm not arguing your EMT friends didn't make his observations, but this is also the type of "statistical" or observation nonsense that makes bad science...All I saying is there is a good chance that the sampling is skewed.

I never said those incidents were representative of the average accident, or that those examples were findings of a scientific study--so sampling and "bad science" are neither here nor there. Those examples were given to illustrate the undisputed fact that sometimes seatbelts hurt. Could be those times are 1 in a million, could be they are more common. Could be we don't know just how often they occur. The fact that they DO happen makes a case that maybe people should be allowed to decide, for themselves, what the risks are of wearing vs. not wearing a seatbelt, and if they want to take those risks.

My only point is that seatbelt use is not a blanket "all benefit-no cost" decision that the government can make for all people, all the time. In decisions like these, folk need to be able to govern themselves.

Moreover, I think Mal and those gorram pesky independents would agree with me.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

JASONZZZ

Thursday, June 2, 2005 3:44 AM

There might be a difference in opinion and concept there. Some people would define society as apart from the "guvment" (i.e. not a part of). Where the people around them - they might view as a part of society; but the "guvment" they view as this over protective parent/overlord figure.

That's an alternate view, might be a valid comparison in some instances where the bureaucrats in the government do, in fact, themselves take that view.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

JASONZZZ

Thursday, June 2, 2005 4:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But that's sort of like saying "Don't wear condoms since it doesn't protect you from disease exactly 100% of the time in every single situation", or "Go ahead and lick the toilet seat, it won't make you sick every single time".
Waaait a minute. I never said, "Don't use seatbelts since they don't protect you every time." What I said was, "Let people choose for themselves, since seatbelts don't protect you every time." To go with your condom analogy, that would be like saying, "Since condoms don't always protect all people all the time, individuals--not the govt--should decide if condoms are best for them or if they want to use an alternative means for protection."

I am following you and I would agree in general that people should be allowed to make and take the own choices - if those are well informed and well educated choices (just in principal, not as a matter of legality) and of course doesn't intrude upon other people right to make their choices...

But at the same time I can not conscionably recommend that someone shouldn't use a seatbelt because it only works part of the time. Seatbelt usage and effective scenarios are fairly predictable - not in every single case, where as the failure scenarios are merely corner cases. If we use the argument that was proposed, each of us would have to try and remember exactly what scenarios out of the 10 million (some swag) different possible ones, we will need to carry around computers that can effectively measure all of the possible parameters in the split instance before some unforseen tragedy, then apply our tremendous power of analysis that everyone of us have, arrive at the exact conclusion on whether the seatbelt might be effective or not and strap it on.

or we can reasonably conclude that seatbelts work in enough general situations to provide general protection that we should recommend everyone to wear it. And for the scenarios where they do not work, there are supplementary active restraint systems that can help you.

In other words, we can not simply throw out the entire solution because of a few corner cases, there will always be corner cases in every solution.

On the flip side though, it stands to obvious reason if the solution can be demonstrated to cause harm effectively in more scenarios and much more frequently than whatever good it provides, then we can recommend its disuse.

And I guess the same line of reasoning goes in the example that was given for your EMT friend's observation. Merely citing an observation doesn't make it a related case, without the proper measurements, it might be a sad coincidence, an anecdotal piece of data, or simply another corner case. For example, let's say that by luck, you borrow your friend's new electric car 3 times out of the month, but each time that you make the friendly request, it happens to need recharging and he tells you to come back later. Now can you really reasonably conclude that the car doesn't work or doesn't really have any inherent worth simply because each of those times that you visited (took the sample), it wasn't working?

I don't think seatbelts are a complete solution to every single case, but it works in enough cases to the benefit and much more so than the few odd cases where they might harm or be ineffective. Where they do, most cars have supplementary systems, for instance, front airbags, side curtain airbags, additional lapbelts, etc.

But back to my original thing with making well informed and well educated choices. If we get rid of that law tomorrow, how exactly will you go about assessing each situation to make sure that you would be making the correct one?

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:
I'm not arguing your EMT friends didn't make his observations, but this is also the type of "statistical" or observation nonsense that makes bad science...All I saying is there is a good chance that the sampling is skewed.
I never said those

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, June 2, 2005 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But at the same time I can not conscionably recommend that someone shouldn't use a seatbelt because it only works part of the time.

But nobody is recommending this. Not even me.

By all means, recommend seatbelts. Recommend to your heart's content. Just don't FORCE seatbelts. Let people choose without coercion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 2, 2005 4:44 AM

Rue, I'm just saying the secondary effects of me not wearing seat belts are negligible. The chances that me not wearing a seat belt is going to cost society any money are very slim.

The real issue here is that we are rapidly creating a society where people are unwilling, and all too often unable, to think for themselves. They expect the government to make decisions for them at every turn and insist that it pave their lives with security. They don't care that this will make them slaves.

Seat belt laws aren't a big deal. Just another dumbass law I ignore. I'll wear seat belts when it suits me and keep a low profile otherwise (ie run from cops at every turn). I don't like living like a criminal, but too many people in our society desire to live like sheep and I won't do that.

I know most of you don't get it, but for those of you who do, I say - "Let's be bad guys!"

(This is a parting shot, the thread is getting bogged down with drivel and losing steam. Thanks to those who participated, I enjoyed it.)

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

ILIZEDE

Thursday, June 2, 2005 4:27 PM

The seatbelt commercials are stupid and often overly exagerated like Truth commercials. Often they need to be to get to morons. Get a Tivo, fast forward past them.

All the situations where seatbelts were bad mentioned above were for cars that have already stopped. All of that has nothing to do with the seatbelt but how calm the victim is in situations like that. If you don't panic, you can easily un-buckle.

However, where seatbelts shine is collisions. They keep you in the car. Nothing you can do on your own will protect you in a collision, not even airbags.

I've been in what was effectivly an 80 mph head on collision with a drunk driver. I would no doubt be dead or worse, brain damaged, if I had not been wearing my seat belt. Instead all I broke was my clavicle, ironically because of the seatbelt and had a few cuts. Much more preferable than being flown out of the car into the street.

ILIZEDE

Thursday, June 2, 2005 4:29 PM

Refusing to wear a seatbelt because you refuse to be a sheep is moronic, albeit, your choice.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 2, 2005 5:20 PM

There is a conundrum over private (risky) decisions leading to social costs: an imbalance between responsibility versus authority.

The crack-addicted woman who has child after child
The vegetable motoryclist who didn't wear a helmet
The person who smokes to express their rebellion and gets cancer (that was the way cigarette mfrs marketed their wares to women)
The obese person who is treated for diabetes

In all cases, the costs are borne by others, either in the form of higher taxes or higher insurance premiums. One way to re-balance the responsibility and authority is to either

(1) charge risk-takers higher insurance premiums or
(2)limit the payout to those who take risks.

In the case where neither can be done- such as the crack addict who produces many children (and the fathers cannot be found to pay child support- after all, THEY engaged in risky behavior too!) then socieyt necessarily needs to step in and remove that person's authority, since they have no way of meeting their responsibilities.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 2, 2005 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ilizede:
Refusing to wear a seatbelt because you refuse to be a sheep is moronic, albeit, your choice.

Ok, I was gonna be done, but I hear this kind of response so often and it just drives me nuts.

First of all, you are entirely missing the point. I'm not refusing to wear seat belts. I'm refusing to grant someone else authority over my personal decisions regarding my safety. I might wear them, I might not. But it's MY decision.

Second, under the law that you are all cheering for it's most decidedly NOT my choice. That's what I'm complaining about.

Dong Ma?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 2, 2005 6:43 PM

So, if it is your decision, do you also agree to (say) a 60% payout on medical costs if evidence show you were not wearing a seatbelt and you were injured? (I assume a factor can be developed that shows and approximate average cost-savings for wearing seatbelts.)

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 2, 2005 7:31 PM

I'm assuming my health care costs (100% of them) are the responsibility of myself or my family (through insurance or other means).
As a slight tangent, this my biggest concern with the various universal health plans being proposed. They would inevitably lead to micromanaging people's private health and safety decisions, as your assumption illustrates.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JCKNIFE

Thursday, June 2, 2005 10:52 PM

I'm with you on this one, Sarge--I don't care for the .gov telling me what to do "for my own good." So while I make sure my kids are buckled in, I sometimes do and sometimes don't wear one myself.

I'm also generally against helmet laws.

I do, however, carry a gun for the same reason that most people wear seatbelts. Not expecting to need it, but just in case.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 2, 2005 11:51 PM

But let's say the insurance company makes it policy against full payout for non-seat-belted injuries, or for people who are found driving drunk. Or they decide to increase premiums for the obese, or for people who smoke. Or they reimburse insured who have air bags. If there isn't some sort of parsing, the cost is spread equally among ppl who take safer options, and those who don't. While I realise that insurance companies are theoretically in business to spread "risk" (altho in fact they are in business to make a profit- but that's another story...) the "risk" they are spreading has generally been thought of as the unavoidable who-could-have-foreseen-it calamity, not as a result of personal choices. Once personal choices come into the equation, then it seem less fair to spread avoidable as well as unavoidable risk.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 3, 2005 12:44 AM

Sounds good to me Signym. That's really what they ought to be doing. Insurance companies exist to assess and deal with risk. They can limit their risk by writing more exclusive policies, but they have to attract a decent number of customers to make the whole thing work.

But, that's not what they're doing. Instead, as the biggest lobbyists for seat belt laws and similar legislation, they're essentially persuading the government to do their job for them.

The problem is, if the insurance companies made these calls themselves, consumers would still have some choice in the matter. Consumers could decide how much intrusion they were willing accept in exchange for low rates. But why bother trying to find the right balance to please your customers? Far easier to lobby government and just force everyone to play ball. They make a boatload more money and we're all safer. Everyone wins, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, June 3, 2005 1:38 AM

'You pays your money, you takes your choice.'

It would be interesting if insurance companies did accident investigations to determine the costs and benefits of seatbelt use. Then there would be real numbers on this particular issue.

So, to pursue how this might go in real life.

Suppose it turns out that on the whole set belt use is associated with reduction of injury.

How to account for this?

Suppose companies offer two policies, one for seat belt users - with a lower premium, and the other for those who don't use seat belts - at a higher premium.

When ppl go for insurance, many will claim to be seat belt users, even if they aren't, in order to get the lower premium.

Given that, there would have to be a disclaimer in the policies that those found not having worn a seat belt on accident investgation would have some reduced payout, or perhaps have their policy voided completely (in accordance with whatever accounting factors are determined by the insurance company).

In the situation where a non-seat belt user (with a seat belt policy) faces devastating medical costs, the incentive to cheat is increased, and therefore the costs to the insurance company of simply running the business goes up (increased fraud surveillance).

I'm sure everyone has some horror story of how a legitimate insurance claim of some type was dragged on and on. This would make it worse. Costs go up and the process slows down, even for those making legitimate claims. So in some ways, those not using seat belts would still cost the seat belt user more. (Still assuming seat belt use saves on medical bills overall.)

And if the non-seat belt user needs medical care more expensive than they or their family can afford, it creates another issue for which no solution has been discussed.

Anyway, I HAVE to go. There are other scenarios to run through, and there is still the idea that it would pay society to foot the bill for risky individuals, that there are other social benefits to be gained. But that's for some future date.

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:09 AM

Ok. But back to my original thing with making well informed and well educated choices. If we get rid of that law tomorrow, how exactly will you go about assessing each situation to make sure that you would be making the correct one?

I am just wondering how you would and how each of us would be able to make an informed choice. An informed choice here would require knowledge and understanding of at least fundamental calculus level physics involves collision and basic mechanics, some trigonometry, at least some basic statistics, and some way of tracking the litany of likely collision and non-collision scenarios.

On the legal side, you actually do still have a choice in obeying the law or not. You'll just have to face a civil penalty rather than a physical one.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But at the same time I can not conscionably recommend that someone shouldn't use a seatbelt because it only works part of the time.

But nobody is recommending this. Not even me.

By all means, recommend seatbelts. Recommend to your heart's content. Just don't FORCE seatbelts. Let people choose without coercion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

HARDWARE

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:58 AM

Rue,

Your argument about increased insurance costs is fatally flawed thanks to the insurance business.

Airbags save lives, but they also increased insurance costs. You see people who would have been killed in collisions prior to air bags have been surviving. What was not known prior to air bags adoption is the collateral injuries that people suffered in previously unsurvivable collisions.

For example, one of the drivers involved in the very first airbag to airbag equipped collision suffered a fracture in one of the small foot bones of her left foot. Without the airbag in her car she would have eaten the steering wheel and the responding officer thought he had two fatalities based on the conditions of the cars. If there had been two fatalities the driver at fault's insurance would have paid out the benefit for wrongful death (varies by state) and paid the cost of the car and that would have been the end of it. Now this driver will require medical intervention and there will be a pain and suffering award. Net result; lives saved but additional costs.

FWIW I don't want a government dictating what my actions will be, even if they are actions I choose to perform. IMHO the younger generations are beginning to behave like zombies. Never question authority, do as they tell you. March to glorious worker's cubicle farm #2073 and be happy in your work. Work will set you free after all.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 3, 2005 4:46 PM

Hardware- Jumping ahead of Rue, I am unaware of any study showing that seatbelts save lives but increase costs. If you have such a study, I would appreciate the info.

Sarge- Hmmm...So, you don't like "government" controlling you, but you accept it if a corporation does. Interesting.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 3, 2005 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sarge- Hmmm...So, you don't like "government" controlling you, but you accept it if a corporation does. Interesting.

Well, corporations can't control you. Not yet anyway. (corporate law needs an overhaul as well, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms)

You do see the difference, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Friday, June 3, 2005 5:28 PM

Actually, I see differences, but they are in favor of the government. We have- at least in theory- direct control of the government by our vote. Where the government fails to do our will, it can almost invariably be laid to corruption by moneyed interests (eg corporations) and a combination of laziness and cupidity on the part of the population. We are protected from invasion of privacy, and so forth- but only if it is done by the GOVERNMENT. There are no such laws protecting us from corporations.

Corporations already control you. They control what we see on TV, whether we have jobs- and at what wages, the direction of research, our social structure (where we are pitted against each other), which environmental costs are borne by what groups, and so forth. There is no equivalently-sized countervailing economic force (no international unions, consumer groups, fair-trade groups, research institutions etc) protecting the interests of the individual or the collective, and so we are left to defend/ adjust ourselves as individuals in a mileu set by organizations that have a power, lifespan, and motivations far beyond us.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I see differences, but they are in favor of the government. We have- at least in theory- direct control of the government by our vote. Where the government fails to do our will, it can almost invariably be laid to corruption by moneyed interests (eg corporations) and a combination of laziness and cupidity on the part of the population. We are protected from invasion of privacy, and so forth- but only if it is done by the GOVERNMENT. There are no such laws protecting us from corporations.
Corporations already control you. They control what we see on TV, whether we have jobs- and at what wages, the direction of research, our social structure (where we are pitted against each other), which environmental costs are borne by what groups, and so forth. There is no equivalently-sized countervailing economic force (no international unions, consumer groups, fair-trade groups, research institutions etc) protecting the interests of the individual, and so we are left to defend/ adjust ourselves as individuals in a mileu set by organizations that have a power, lifespan, and motivations far beyond us.

There's plenty about the position of modern corporations in society that gnaws at me, and I'm all eager to discuss how to fix those problems, but it's not relevant to the current discussion. Even with their current unbalanced influence on society, corporations can't put you in jail. And, without government involvment, they can't force you to do business with them.

Insurance companies can write policies with provisions that would deal with the supposed 'social costs' of not wearing seat belts. But it would still be up to customers how much intrusion and control they'd be willing to accept. They'd always be free to look for other options if they didn't like the offer. That's the difference.

Government solutions are almost always of the 'one-size-fits-all' variety. That's fine if you're with the majority, but it leaves the rest of us screwed.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:27 PM

I agree completely with you on this one, Sig. The top corporations are have income and expenditures (let alone multinational global fiat power) greater than some nations. Some of them span the globe in terms of spending, hiring practices, consumer influence, environmental impact, etc. These people literally can influence the local populace and governments and *make* the rules.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

SIGNYM

Friday, June 3, 2005 7:24 PM

Quote:
Even with their current unbalanced influence on society, corporations can't put you in jail. And, without government involvment, they can't force you to do business with them.

You are forced to do business with them all the time- you can't avoid it. And as far as jail is concerned- is that worse than not being able to find a legitimate job and whoring yourself?

I agree with you that the govenrment makes far too many laws intrusive to our individual lives. I would much rather the government turn its attention to restraining the poweful, rather than criminalizing people. But there needs to be some sort of balancing between responsibility and authority.

HARDWARE

Friday, June 3, 2005 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hardware- Jumping ahead of Rue, I am unaware of any study showing that seatbelts save lives but increase costs. If you have such a study, I would appreciate the info.

Here you go Siggy.

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/ts/text/ch12.htm

It's similar to the study I found several years ago. Unfortunately in order to see the tables you are going to have to purchase a copy of the article.

A couple of other things that this article brings up that we haven't even talked about in costs. How much do airbags add to insurance costs based on otherwise repairable cars being totalled because of the $800-$1500 airbag cost being tacked onto the sheet metal repair estimate?

Additionally, let's not forget all those people who have been killed by airbags in low speed collisions. One source reports that 22 children have been killed by airbags.

{sarcasm}FOR GOODNESS SAKE LET US REMOVE THESE KILLER AIRBAGS FROM ALL OF OUR CARS! IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE IT WILL BE WORTH IT! WE HAVE TO DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!{/sarcasm}

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 3, 2005 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You are forced to do business with them all the time- you can't avoid it. And as far as jail is concerned- is that worse than not being able to find a legitimate job and whoring yourself?

But you aren't ever forced to do business with them. No one ever says, "Do what I say or I will shoot you.". That is the ultimate result of making something a law.

And as far as jail being no worse than being out of work - I'm not sure how you can equate them. Ever been in jail?

I do agree with you that corporations have extended their power far beyond justification and that is a battle that perhaps we'd find ourselves on the same side of. But I just don't think it's a matter of choosing between corportations-as-master or government-as-master. Why not look for something better?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 3, 2005 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

But you aren't ever forced to do business with them. No one ever says, "Do what I say or I will shoot you.". That is the ultimate result of making something a law.

well... nobody's there to force you to comply with the law either (at least not in the US - arguably) - but there are consequences - if you are caught.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

And as far as jail being no worse than being out of work - I'm not sure how you can equate them. Ever been in jail?

Depends on what kind of crime or what part of the country. Don't want to fool with Sheriff Arpaio @ Maricopa Country ( http://www.mcso.org/ ) - ever - that's for sure. But white collar criminals frequently get much better treatment (i.e. Martha). And plenty of jobless folks and homeless folks would rather take the 3 meals a day + shelter than sleeping and dying out in the inclement weather. Not saying I'm one of them...

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I do agree with you that corporations have extended their power far beyond justification and that is a battle that perhaps we'd find ourselves on the same side of. But I just don't think it's a matter of choosing between corportations-as-master or government-as-master. Why not look for something better?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 4, 2005 1:15 AM

Quote:
But you aren't ever forced to do business with them.

You work for them. You buy from them. You're entertained by them. Your retirement plan invests in them. You have to pay medical bills because you breathe their pollution. You could live in isolation at a primitive level, making your own iron, growing your own food, cutting your trees and spinning your wool- but unless you live at that level, you do business with them.

Quote:
"Do what I say or I will shoot you.". That is the ultimate result of making something a law.

Very few laws have capital punishment associated with them. However, hundreds of thousand of people die every day- not from natural disasters, but from a system that promotes fabulous wealth for a few and grinding poverty for many. They are forced to do, and they die if they don't.

Quote:
But I just don't think it's a matter of choosing between corportations-as-master or government-as-master. Why not look for something better?

I absolutely agree. However, you will never achieve anything better if you think we can take on corporations as individuals. And by the fact that we are a democracy, I see more hope in controlling the government (with its recognized system of laws) to control the corporations that I do in controlling corporations directly. We just have to turn the government around.

RUE

Saturday, June 4, 2005 2:58 AM

We're birds in a cage, focused on finding a comfortable perch, oblivious to the owners of the cage.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 6, 2005 3:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM: However, you will never achieve anything better if you think we can take on corporations as individuals.

I believe individuals can absolutely take on corporations (or rather big money/big business) if corporations didn't have government backing them. Corporations get their power FROM the government, so how could be be controlled BY the government? I agree there is a need to change the laws drastically--but change the laws to involve the govt LESS rather than more. The only true sustainable solution is to divorce big business from government, and allow small businesses to take them on in a true free market. When you have poor sole proprietors taking on rich sole proprietors, with no legal protection for either party, it becomes a totally different, consumer-driven game.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 6, 2005 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
If we get rid of that law tomorrow, how exactly will you go about assessing each situation to make sure that you would be making the correct one?

Remember, the government (or the law) is itself a body of men--usually notably ungoverned. If I let THOSE men choose "correct" decisions for me, I'd be nothing but a child or automaton. It's time to kick the American public out of the authoritarian home and let them grow up and make "correct" decisions for themselves.

I personally assess seatbelt usage risks by looking at traffic, speed, my mental alertness. Mostly my mental alertness. If I'm asleep, I'm nothing but a crash dummy who can't react and I strap up. If I'm driving in a traffic jam that changes speed frequently and suddenly, I strap up.

Quote:
On the legal side, you actually do still have a choice in obeying the law or not. You'll just have to face a civil penalty rather than a physical one.

If I don't pay the civil penalty, I face a very real physical threat. Fines may look like you have a choice to pay--but they are backed up by bench warrants and guns. How about no penalty at all? Like no penalty if I don't use a condom, or brush my teeth after sweets, or fart over a lit match, or any number of perceived stupid things I might choose to do?

Really, this discussion ultimately has little to do with seatbelts. It has to do with whether people should be allowed to govern themselves or whether they need other people (presumably more well informed and more well educated) to control their personal habits for them.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

SIGNYM

Monday, June 6, 2005 5:04 PM

Can't- It sounds like what you're saying is that the problem starts and ends with the government. I totally agree. But while we're changing government, let's make sure that we change important things- like NAFTA and laws of incorporation and liability, IP, fiduciary duty... oh and BTW remove the "due process" and free speech protections from synthetic persons- instead of cutting off our own protections.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 2:14 AM

SignyM,

I can't believe it, but I agree! :)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

WILDBILL

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 2:46 AM

"... let's make sure that we change important things- like NAFTA and laws of incorporation and liability, IP, fiduciary duty... oh and BTW remove the "due process" and free speech protections from synthetic persons- instead of cutting off our own protections."

Damn straight.

"I never ride with anyone who doesn't wear their seatbelt. One of my rules."

SERENITY NOW!!