Safety vs. Freedom

[Roman]

When should people's freedom come before their safety?
If you own a gun, for instance, your kid is like 10x more likely to die from being shot with a gun- which also happens to be the same gun you own.

Should punishment only be administered after wrong doing, or as a preventative measure?
Drunk drivers don't do anything hurtful- until the careen into the other lane and wipe out a bunch of hot young white teenage girls. Then everyone is sad.

 

[Baron Max]

If you own a gun, for instance, your kid is like 10x more likely to die from being shot with a gun- which also happens to be the same gun you own.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim?

Baron Max

 

[Roman]

Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim?

Baron Max

Do you have any evidence to unsubstantiate it?

But yeah, it's in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.

 

[Asguard]

you do realise there is no definitive answer to that question dont you?
under libral (in the sence of the type of goverment we have rather than in the sence of left right politics) principles the harm has to be argued to outweigh the loss of freedom.

In the case of drink driving the harm is ovious, we have VERY good statistics on how many acidents each year achole is a factor. We have scientific data on the way achole impares reactions. The harm caused by the laws themselves is less ovious, it has to do with limiting transport options ect. Most people have judged the potentual harm to be higher than the possable inconveniance as evidenced by the uncontested (as far as im awear they are surported by both sides of politics even in the US) laws with regard to drink driving. Enforcement seems to be the devicive issue in the US, where it isnt in places like australia.

A good statement of this comes from a lecture i was in from the (at the time, not sure if he still is) head of the major crash unit (Chris Fergison)

"i would much rather stop you here, than scrape you up a 100m down the road"

in australia the risk of guns is judged to be higher than the potentual harm\inconveniance of NOT having them. In the US oviously this isnt the case

 

[Roman]

A good statement of this comes from a lecture i was in from the (at the time, not sure if he still is) head of the major crash unit (Chris Fergison)

"i would much rather stop you here, than scrape you up a 100m down the road"

You misunderstand.
If I want to smear myself over 100m of pavement, it's my prerogative. If I want to smear you over 100m of pavement, it's something else entirely.

 

[Asguard]

not entirly, for example seatbelt laws (which i belive have been introduced in the US). Its POSSABLE that you could fly foward and kill someone else but mostly its about personal saftey. That being said it isnt without cost to the public, for instance health care in the trauma centers is a public expence. It would be unethical to say "you wernt wearing a seatbelt, didnt have your helmet on, oh well we will let you die". So that expence is not negotiable, however the public DOES have the right to expect that you will offset that risk as well. Thats a purly economic view point of course rather than a public saftey view point

 

[Roman]

Seatbelt laws are dumb. They're only necessary since I have to pay for other people's retardation due to insurance and socialized health care.

 

[Asguard]

you do realise that is not a very good argument dont you

 

[Asguard]

that being said im kind of annoyed at the changes to the seat belt laws in SA. If a person refuses to put there seat belt on i as the driver are now liable no matter WHAT age they are but i also cant phyically remove them from the car. I surpose what im ment to do is call the cops to have them removed so that i can do whatever it is I need to do which is a waste of police time

 

[Roman]

you do realise that is not a very good argument dont you

That I'm forced to pay for other people's irresponsibility, and, rather than changing the system of forcing me to pay, they instead further remove more of my rights? How is this fair?

How negligent is too negligent, though?
Clearly "victimless crimes" shouldn't be crimes, since they're only hurting the person who made the decision. If they're a financial burden on the system, then the most obvious solution is to stop stealing people's money to help drug addicts, people who don't wear seatbelt, etc, and let them deal with the consequences on their own.

But with negligence that has the potential to really hurt other people, like drunk driving, that should be prevented before it happens. No amount of financial restitution is going to get me my hot cheerleader girlfriend back. Well, alright, it might, but you get what I mean.

that being said im kind of annoyed at the changes to the seat belt laws in SA. If a person refuses to put there seat belt on i as the driver are now liable no matter WHAT age they are but i also cant phyically remove them from the car. I surpose what im ment to do is call the cops to have them removed so that i can do whatever it is I need to do which is a waste of police time

That's what you get for asking government to solve your problems, I guess.

 

[Challenger78]

When should people's freedom come before their safety?
If you own a gun, for instance, your kid is like 10x more likely to die from being shot with a gun- which also happens to be the same gun you own.

Should punishment only be administered after wrong doing, or as a preventative measure?
Drunk drivers don't do anything hurtful- until the careen into the other lane and wipe out a bunch of hot young white teenage girls. Then everyone is sad.

I think the question is when should other people's freedom come before your own ?
I mean, most of us here are intelligent enough not to keep a loaded gun. We'd keep the ammunition and the gun separate until we'd need to use them.. Most of us are also not part of gangs, and therefore do not need fully automatic pistols,or rifles.
But. Do you trust the other moron's enough to? I don't. Therefore, I'm willing to give up my freedom to ensure that some poor innocent kid doesn't kill themselves due to their dumbass father.

 

[Roman]

Therefore, I'm willing to give up my freedom to ensure that some poor innocent kid doesn't kill themselves due to their dumbass father.

See, I feel like anyone dumb enough to kill themselves should be dead.
Kids included.
If a parent can't protect its offspring, tough luck. Though I guess when should kids stop counting as property and get the rights afforded to them that adults get?

 

[Bricoleur]

Seatbelt laws are dumb. They're only necessary since I have to pay for other people's retardation due to insurance and socialized health care.

Are you denying the efficiacy of seat belts per se, or stating the laws regarding their use are dumb? I don't think seatbelts are dumb, they're there to protect us from ourselves. They're there to ensure parents do the safest thing for their kids, as guardians. They are there because some people can't see or understand the physics behind masses of metal moving at high velocity can impinge on one's body when stopped suddenly. They are there becasue many people, and especially young ones, have an over-active ego that says they're above having an auto accident, or getting injured if they do...as in 10foot tall and bullet proof. A bit like motorcycle helmets really, but then again we have laws here about that too.
I think you should get over the selfishness embodied in the comment "I have to pay..." We all have to pay, society has to pay for the results of the road carnage. Its part of the tax burden of society, to pay for the health system... well it should be in my biased view. Victims of traffic accidents can't be left to die, just because they refused to wear a seatbelt or helmet, something about the Hippocratic Oath even.
And as for "retardation", do you mean 1. for not wearing a seatbelt 2. for the stupidity of having an accident, obviously their fault, or 3. brain damage or trauma caaused by 1 or 2??

Shallow thinking here I'm afraid.

 

[TW Scott]

not entirly, for example seatbelt laws (which i belive have been introduced in the US). Its POSSABLE that you could fly foward and kill someone else but mostly its about personal saftey. That being said it isnt without cost to the public, for instance health care in the trauma centers is a public expence. It would be unethical to say "you wernt wearing a seatbelt, didnt have your helmet on, oh well we will let you die". So that expence is not negotiable, however the public DOES have the right to expect that you will offset that risk as well. Thats a purly economic view point of course rather than a public saftey view point

Actually medical care is US trauma centers is an individual expense.

 

[Baron Max]

Therefore, I'm willing to give up my freedom to ensure that some poor innocent kid doesn't kill themselves due to their dumbass father.

Yeah, but notice that what you're alluding to is NOT just yourself ...you're trying to force YOUR opinions/thoughts onto others.
With more laws and rules, you're trying to force others to give up some of their freedoms in the same way as you would. That ain't nice, is it?

If you want to give up some of your freedom, I say FINE. But don't take any of mine without my specific consent ...which is what you're trying to do.

Baron Max

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

"People who are willing to sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will inevitably end up with neither." -- That quote is usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but although he used it he admitted that it was not original.

". . . . and that's just fine, because it's exactly what those people deserve." -- Addendum by Fraggle Rocker

 

[Baron Max]

"People who are willing to sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will inevitably end up with neither." -- That quote is usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but although he used it he admitted that it was not original.

". . . . and that's just fine, because it's exactly what those people deserve." -- Addendum by Fraggle Rocker

Tell that to the people who were killed in the Twin Towers, Fraggle.
Or perhaps you can tell it to the people who were killed in Mumbai this past week.
Or tell it to the woman whose young daughter was raped and killed last week in Los Angeles.
Or tell it to the Japanese people who were killed with sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo a few years ago.

See, Fraggle, viewing things from a different perspective, than from the comforts and security of your own home, might make you realize that security is not a bad thing ....and that more people could use some of it.

Baron Max

 

[Nasor]

It would be unethical to say "you wernt wearing a seatbelt, didnt have your helmet on, oh well we will let you die".

Perhaps not, but it seems perfectly reasonable to say "you weren't wearing a seatbelt/didn't have a helmet on, so we're going to send you a bill for all this medical care after we put you back together."

 

[Nasor]

"People who are willing to sacrifice a little liberty for a little security will inevitably end up with neither." -- That quote is usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but although he used it he admitted that it was not original.

". . . . and that's just fine, because it's exactly what those people deserve." -- Addendum by Fraggle Rocker

Actually the correct quote is "Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a little temporary security..."

People rarely deliver that quote correctly, because the correct quote implies that it might indeed be acceptable to give up some liberty if it resulted in a significant, long-term increase in security. It also opens the door for people to start arguing over what constitutes an "essential" liberty.

 

[Roman]

Are you denying the efficiacy of seat belts per se, or stating the laws regarding their use are dumb?

The latter.

I don't think seatbelts are dumb,....

Nor do I, but I take it you mean seatbelt laws. I don't see any legitimacy in the government playing mommy. If I don't want to put on a seatbelt or wear a helmet, then I'm not hurting anyone but myself. How does anyone have any right to tell me to buckle up or else they're going to take my money? Other than the ad bacum arguments Baron is so fond of making.

I think you should get over the selfishness embodied in the comment "I have to pay..."

You should get over the idea that I'm responsible for your welfare. I'm not.

We all have to pay, society has to pay for the results of the road carnage.

It's very simple The responsible party pays for the road carnage.

Its part of the tax burden of society, to pay for the health system... well it should be in my biased view. Victims of traffic accidents can't be left to die, just because they refused to wear a seatbelt or helmet, something about the Hippocratic Oath even.

Why don't you like personal responsibility?
Of course traffic accident victims can be left to die, though there's a hefty financial inventive to to not leave them there.

And as for "retardation", do you mean 1. for not wearing a seatbelt 2. for the stupidity of having an accident, obviously their fault, or 3. brain damage or trauma caaused by 1 or 2??

I mean that if you get in accident, and you aren't wearing a seatbelt, you're going to take a lot more damage. It's rather foolish not to wear a seatbelt. But they save money to the "system", since if you get in accident, other people end up sharing some of the financial cost of your injuries. The reason seatbelt laws exist is to protect people from their own bad decisions, since for some reason people insist on taking other people's money.

Shallow thinking here I'm afraid.

Yes. Believing other people should pay for your stupidity is shallow thinking.

Tell that to the people who were killed in the Twin Towers, Fraggle.
Or perhaps you can tell it to the people who were killed in Mumbai this past week.
Or tell it to the woman whose young daughter was raped and killed last week in Los Angeles.
Or tell it to the Japanese people who were killed with sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo a few years ago.

You could, but seeing as how they're dead, I'm not sure what you'd be trying to accomplish.