Mickmeister
Registered Senior Member
Because I would rather have my freedom than safety. I would rather be in more danger and have the right to carry a gun than.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Safety vs. Freedom
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
Because I would rather have my freedom than safety. I would rather be in more danger and have the right to carry a gun than.
OK, I'm gone.
With the seatbelt you might be safe, there,nasor said: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."
but with the helmet there's a fair chance the extra cost breaks the other way.
I quote a neurosurgeon from Chicago, private conversation after a bad day on the table: "I hate motorcycle helmets. Because they live."
Of course with a helmet in a car, or walking around, you'd have a solid case.
It doesn't even matter really. The higher your level of safety gets the lower your experience in dangerous situations gets. Some things that aren't prone to experience in a certain event may be implemented in our lives to assure living (i.e. seatbelts and such). I'd rather think of it being free to choose safety while being safe to live free.
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."
you could well say thats what seatbelt and helmet laws are all about, if you dont wear them you get fined (taxed)
Fining people for not using seatbelts or helmets regardless of whether or not they get in an accident and need medical attention is not at all the same as charging them for medical care. I really hope that I don't need to explain the difference to you.you could well say thats what seatbelt and helmet laws are all about, if you dont wear them you get fined (taxed)
Just eliminate the seatbelt/helmet laws, but make people pay for their medical care if they're hurt. Now people who want to be safe can be safe, and they won't have to pay extra to cover the cost of people who want to make risky decisions. People who want to engage in risky behavior are free to do so, and are responsible for any costs that arise as a consequence of their own actions. Hurry!
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Only the Moderators can see deleted posts, right?Hyperwaders, do you have any idea how annoying that is? If you cant get the post right after the 5th time forget it
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Thank you! A sensible voice. The libertarian movement has been preaching that for decades. People must have the freedom to do stupid things and suffer the consequences, or no one else will understand why they're stupid. Besides, no one has the right to do a cost-benefit analysis for someone else. We have no way of knowing whether the pleasure of a dangerous act is worth the risk for someone else.Fining people for not using seatbelts or helmets regardless of whether or not they get in an accident and need medical attention is not at all the same as charging them for medical care. I really hope that I don't need to explain the difference to you. Just eliminate the seatbelt/helmet laws, but make people pay for their medical care if they're hurt. Now people who want to be safe can be safe, and they won't have to pay extra to cover the cost of people who want to make risky decisions. People who want to engage in risky behavior are free to do so, and are responsible for any costs that arise as a consequence of their own actions. Hurry!
Thank you! A sensible voice. The libertarian movement has been preaching that for decades. People must have the freedom to do stupid things and suffer the consequences, or no one else will understand why they're stupid. Besides, no one has the right to do a cost-benefit analysis for someone else. We have no way of knowing whether the pleasure of a dangerous act is worth the risk for someone else.
And yet, Fraggle, aren't you the very one who's constantly applauding the high virtues of "civilization"? And haven't you admitted on numerous occasions that rules and laws are what makes that "civilization" work?
I'm surprised, Fraggle, that you can't take YOUR beliefs and see clearly that others might want more of what you already claim that you want in society. They just want a little more of what you want, that's all. YOU have your "line in the sand", others have their own.
Yes, Fraggle, I agree with what you've stated, but that doesn't make it any more "right" than the Joe Lawmaker who wants every-fuckin'-thing regulated and laws formed for every-fuckin'-thing.
"I'm right and you're wrong" just doesn't seem to be your normal mode of operation, Fraggle. And where would your precious "civilization" be without those rules and laws ....however many there are or will be?
Baron Max
/pedantry onmate, go back and redo the year 10 physic componant on road saftey again.
Seat belts are designed to INCREASE the impulse not shorten it, they strech in a very specific way and for a very specific length of time.
Since this is a science forum and all, I'm afraid you're going to have to go back and redo year 10 physics as well. Seatbelts don't change the impulse that a body experiences in a crash, because the impulse is the total change in momentum that a body will undergo. If you go from 100 km/h to 0 km/h it doesn't matter whether you do it in 0.1 seconds or 100 seconds, your impulse is the same.
/pedantry off
In any case, I strongly suspect (but can't prove, of course) that most of the pro-seatbelt/helmet/whatever people in this thread simply like the idea of being able to tell others what to do "for their own good," even if the other person's behavior doesn't actually affect them. The point about having to pay more for injured peoples' medical treatment is a valid one, but I suspect that it's really just an excuse; they would still support such laws even if there wasn't any monetary cost to society associated with car accidents. They would simply start scrounging round to find another reason to justify telling others what to do.
/pedantry on
Since this is a science forum and all, I'm afraid you're going to have to go back and redo year 10 physics as well. Seatbelts don't change the impulse that a body experiences in a crash, because the impulse is the total change in momentum that a body will undergo. If you go from 100 km/h to 0 km/h it doesn't matter whether you do it in 0.1 seconds or 100 seconds, your impulse is the same.
/pedantry off
In any case, I strongly suspect (but can't prove, of course) that most of the pro-seatbelt/helmet/whatever people in this thread simply like the idea of being able to tell others what to do "for their own good," even if the other person's behavior doesn't actually affect them. The point about having to pay more for injured peoples' medical treatment is a valid one, but I suspect that it's really just an excuse; they would still support such laws even if there wasn't any monetary cost to society associated with car accidents. They would simply start scrounging round to find another reason to justify telling others what to do.
In that case you'd wrong Nasor! Its not my nature to go around telling people what to do, I'm simply stating that in the case of seat belts, the laws should be there because some people can't be trusted to wear them voluntarily. As you say there is a cost, if its only about that, its reason enough.
As an individual there are many laws I disagree with, like firearms, drugs, censorship, some taxes... I don't like being told what to do always, but on this subject I'm in agreement
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.
This could be so interesting... I see that it doesn't mention seat belts, however...:bugeye:
who's fault is that? the gun owner, not the gun.
You're missing the point.
You should you get to die, because I'm careless?
If you remove my ability to be careless, you won't die.
I think that's the heart of the gun debate- does my right to own a gun and maybe protect myself from grizzlies, black people*, Hitler**, shoot skeet, or hunt, outweigh your right not to be accidentally killed by an idiot?
*By black people, I mean criminals, but we all know we really mean black people.
**Not Hitler, but a fascist government, though Hitler is a convenient foil.
um tiassa, thats just not true. Im sorry but im sure i have actually atended more acidents than you have and seeing the damage done by someone flying through the front window of a car is horific
In the US, we have health insurance, which we use to insure our bodies. That was what Tiassa meant.
I have no problem with taking personal responsibility, but unfortunately its not part of the modern legal system. Its always someone else's fault, so lets sue them. I believe this litigation frenzy started in the US.
Part of my job is training people, mostly young people, in a light industrial workshop. I've had accidents with students, as in amputation of digits. Believe me its very hard legally to land the responsibilty on their own action. Its a training issue, its an access problem, its a machinery fault, its anything but their own fault unless proved absolutely.
The authorities (in this case the uni) have to save people from themselves because society has removed personal responsibility from the population. Seatbelt laws fit in with this trend.
So because the problem is American's refusal to take personal responsibility, the solution is to continue to let American's shirk responsibility?
hyperwaders, do you have any idea how annoying that is?
if you cant get the post right after the 5th time forget it
Was it multiposting? Or multiediting?
Jeeze, don't be so anal. Hype usually has good things to say, and he says them subtly. It might take a few shots to get it right. If it's edits, which only you can see, can you just put up with it, for the rest of us?
roman its not his EDITING posts i was refering to, it is his habbit of posting basically the same post OVER and OVER again and then deleting it and replacing it with another one.
I click "view new posts" see there is a new post there click on it and its the same dam post i have already read 5 times.
There is an EDIT button people for small errors, please use it
I click "view new posts" see there is a new post there click on it and its the same dam post i have already read 5 times.
There is an EDIT button people for small errors, please use it
Nasor said:In any case, I strongly suspect (but can't prove, of course) that most of the pro-seatbelt/helmet/whatever people in this thread simply like the idea of being able to tell others what to do "for their own good," even if the other person's behavior doesn't actually affect them. The point about having to pay more for injured peoples' medical treatment is a valid one, but I suspect that it's really just an excuse; they would still support such laws even if there wasn't any monetary cost to society associated with car accidents. They would simply start scrounging round to find another reason to justify telling others what to do.
I posted this in another reply, but I think it bears repeating:
Do you think it's fair that a person on a motorcycle gets into an accident with me and dies because the accident was in a state where it isn't mandatory to wear helmets? And not simply for the person who died, but for the other driver? Is it fair that what would have been a fender-bender between two cars becomes a road fatality because the motorcycle rider didn't have to wear a helmet? Should the other driver have to live with that?
It's beneficial to everyone, not just the person put at more physical risk by not taking the precaution. I'd rather not kill someone in what could have been a benign accident.
roman its not his EDITING posts i was refering to, it is his habbit of posting basically the same post OVER and OVER again and then deleting it and replacing it with another one.
I click "view new posts" see there is a new post there click on it and its the same dam post i have already read 5 times.
There is an EDIT button people for small errors, please use it
Who cares.
You're the only one, and a damned petulant SOB who abuses his modship, at that.
Cope, I guess.
I know, think of it as a small sacrifice you have to make as part of your responsibility for serving the community.
I'd rather not kill someone in what could have been a benign accident.
Interesting question.
My reflexive response would be to tell you to quit driving if you can't handle the consequences, but I'm not sure if that's right. I guess I can say what ever I want- it's my right. You, however, have no right to be preserved from whatever offensive things I want to say by censoring me (in theory, anyway). So maybe it's my right to smear my brains across the highway, but not your right to prevent me from doing so because you don't want to kill me?