Are seatbelt laws legitimate, within the context of government control

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm afraid I don't really understand your arguments.

For clarity, my position is that the legitimacy of a landlord's right to property depends on a landlord's respect for a vehicle owner's right to property. Landlords can legitimately demand vehicle owners drive safely across their real estate, because damages caused by unsafe driving may be interpreted as an act of aggression against the landlord. However, how does not wearing a seat belt threaten the landlord's property? The driver's life and vehicle never legitimately become the landlord's possession, so where is this act of aggression against what the landlord owns??

Edited September 2, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[DonAthos]

A right to property that doesn't respect a right to life isn't legitimate, regardless of whatever authority imposes regulation. Regulation is intended to secure interaction between individuals; not to coerce the actions (limit the freedom) of a person to act on their own behalf, where those actions pose no threat or inconvenience to anyone else. Seat belt regulation intended to prevent passengers in a collision from harming each other, might be considered legitimate. However seat belt regulation by a landlord, who doesn't own the seat belts in question, is absurd. Clearly the landlord's right to property doesn't subsume the vehicle owner's right to property.

The fact the a owner/driver may choose to tolerate the illegitimate (in respect to the right to life of the vehicle owner) seat belt regulation of a landlord, only proves that, "experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" (source: Preamble, Declaration of independence). More likely the driver will simply buckle up, or continue unrestrained according to his own judgement regarding the safe operation of his vehicle; which more than anything implies the true authority regarding the legitimacy of seat belt regulation.

Okay, so, based on proximity and timing, I'll proceed as though you are responding to me. Yet I don't feel satisfied -- you're talking about "a right to life" and authorities imposing regulations that "subsume the vehicle owner's right to property" and etc., and... I'd like to try to pin this down a little bit first, before we go so wide in our abstractions.

I posed what I believe to be an analogous situation in my earlier response to you, and if possible, I'd like to know what you think of it.

Say that I own a home. And I have guests over. One of them starts making a number of racist jokes that my wife and I find distasteful and upsetting. Do I have the right to insist that he leaves my home?

[Devil's Advocate]

Say that I own a home. And I have guests over. One of them starts making a number of racist jokes that my wife and I find distasteful and upsetting. Do I have the right to insist that he leaves my home?

Yes

[DonAthos]

Yes

Thank you for the direct reply! (I find them so rare at times that they demand gratitude and celebration.)

Okay, we're agreed that I have the right to insist he leaves my home. And I find this analogous to the landlord and his road, which is as much his property as my house is mine.

Every traveler across the landlord's road is as a guest. And should a traveler do something which the landlord finds distasteful and upsetting (e.g. fail to wear a seatbelt), it is the landlord's discretion to insist that traveler leave his land.

What do you make of that?

[thenelli01]

Such a rules aren't laws. In my house or on my private property I can introduce any rules I please as long as I don't initiate force. Besides, who said we need traffic laws at all? See Holland experiment:

I agree with you. My disagreement comes with the way you are arguing against gov traffic laws. It is similar to how the repubs get caught up on arguing about churches being forced to go against their moral principles instead of arguing the real issue, which is the Heath care law in its entirety. When you start arguing subsets of an illegitamate law, you in effect give it legitimacy. The whole thing is illegitamate, because the government shouldn't be controlling the roads.

However, I think I am being a bit unfair as this topic is about "seatbelt" or traffic laws.

I did watch most of the video. I think that is interesting, but I wonder how they would determine financial responsibility in, for example, accidents resulting from yielding right of way like in a merging road. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Edited September 2, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Devil's Advocate]

Okay, we're agreed that I have the right to insist he leaves my home. And I find this analogous to the landlord and his road, which is as much his property as my house is mine.

Not really; a homeowner's driveway makes a better analogy, unless your sofa comes with seat belts...

Every traveler across the landlord's road is as a guest. And should a traveler do something which the landlord finds distasteful and upsetting (e.g. fail to wear a seatbelt), it is the landlord's discretion to insist that traveler leave his land.

Again the relevant issue is, how does failing to buckle up constitute a legitimate act of aggression against the landlord? How is his safety or real estate placed at risk?? In fact the reverse is true; any effort by the landlord to coerce the driver is an act of aggression against the owner of the vehicle, in that it attempts to force the legitimate owner of the vehicle to operate it in a manner contrary to the driver's own judgement of safe operation of his own property.

We can agree that a private road owner can refuse passage to anyone, but he cannot legitimately bargain for unsafe passage by coercing a driver to use anything other than his own judgement for the safe operation of his own vehicle.

[thenelli01]

Again the relevant issue is, how does failing to buckle up constitute a legitimate act of aggression against the landlord? How is his safety or real estate placed at risk??

How is a racist joke jeopardizing the safety of the landlord? The answer is that it doesn't and that isn't the threshold needed to decide what rules the landlord can make on his own property.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Devil's Advocate]

How is a racist joke jeopardizing the safety of the landlord? The answer is that it doesn't and that isn't the threshold needed to decide what rules the landlord can make on his own property.

The difference being, the landlord owns the house and property, but not the vehicle which is his guest's property. Therefore he isn't entitled (as a property right) to coerce vehicle owner into wearing seat belts, or not to.

[thenelli01]

The difference being, the landlord owns the house and property, but not the vehicle which is his guest's property. Therefore he isn't entitled (as a property right) to coerce vehicle owner into wearing seat belts, or not to.

So guests can use their property in any way they wish on someone else's property as long as they don't threaten the safety of the owner, his property, or other guests, even if the landowner objects?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Devil's Advocate]

So guests can use their property in any way they wish on someone else's property as long as they don't threaten the safety of the owner, his property, or other guests, even if the landowner objects?

Specifically, vehicle owners are entitled to the same respect for property that real estate owners are...

"Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." ~ Property Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon

[DonAthos]

Again the relevant issue is, how does failing to buckle up constitute a legitimate act of aggression against the landlord?

We're not looking for "legitimate act(s) of aggression" -- we're affirming the landlord's right to use his property as he chooses.

A houseguest does not need to perform a "legitimate act of aggression" against me before I'm within my rights to tell him to leave my house. I may simply tire of his company, may I not? Or I may have any reason at all.

How is his safety or real estate placed at risk?? In fact the reverse is true; any effort by the landlord to coerce the driver is an act of aggression against the owner of the vehicle, in that it attempts to force the legitimate owner of the vehicle to operate it in a manner contrary to the driver's own judgement of safe operation of his own property.

We can agree that a private road owner can refuse passage to anyone, but he cannot legitimately bargain for unsafe passage by coercing a driver to use anything other than his own judgement for the safe operation of his own vehicle.

Ah, but your use of the word "coerce" is what is at issue here.

It's absolutely true -- in the strictest sense -- that the landlord may not "coerce" the driver into wearing a seatbelt. The landlord's power begins and ends with whether he allows the driver access to his property. But he can enter into an arrangement of the following kind: if you do not wear a seatbelt, you may not enter.

In similar fashion, I may not coerce anyone into not telling jokes that I would find offensive. My power as a homeowner begins and ends with whether I allow the joke-teller use of my home. While I cannot force him to not tell such jokes, I can tell him to leave my property. And this is the power that the landlord possesses as well.

It would not be "coercive" of me to say to a potential houseguest, "Look, you can come have dinner with me if you choose, but don't tell any of those off-color jokes, or you're out." That's not an infringement of his freedom of speech, whether he accepts my terms or does not. Similarly, as a landlord possessed of a road, it would not be within my power to tell you whether or not you need to wear a seatbelt. You're free to do as you choose. But I *can* tell you whether or not you're welcome to drive on my road -- because it is my road. And if I set conditions for the use of my road, you are free to choose to accept them or not; you are not coerced to do anything at all.

It's kind of like the old joke about a bar's closing time: "You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here." The bartender has no ability to make a person stop drinking alcohol or go home or wear his seatbelt on the journey. But he can tell the patron that he must leave the bar. Just as a homeowner may excuse his guest, or the landlord may deny access to his road from the driver. What we're observing in every instance is not coercion, but the just application of property rights.

[Devil's Advocate]

It's absolutely true -- in the strictest sense -- that the landlord may not "coerce" the driver into wearing a seatbelt. The landlord's power begins and ends with whether he allows the driver access to his property. But he can enter into an arrangement of the following kind: if you do not wear a seatbelt, you may not enter.

Then we agree on the issue of coercion and that of a property owner's right to limit access. I think whatever difference of opinion remains has to do with the legitimacy of one property owner to attempt to limit another in the context of sharing a respect for property rights. A traveler on a private road can be understood to be in the process of exiting the premises, so the issue of trespassing is somewhat moot. As to the larger issue of whether or not a road owner can legitimately limit a car owner's use of his own vehicle, I'll again refer you to the Lexicon (as I did Matt):

"Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." ~ Property Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon

"No Trespassing" is legitimate.

"Please use seat belts on this road" is legitimate.

"Do as I say on my property, and as I say in your property" isn't legitimate.

[Spiral Architect]

Except that that's not true. A public road is the product of someone's effort. Ayn Rand 101: the product of someone's effort is someone's property.

Unless it is your property, by claiming the right to drive on it without a seatbelt, you are claiming the right to someone else's property.

In the context of proper “public property” I agree. In the wishy-washy world of collectivist “ownership” that trends today is what I’m referencing. We end up in fights over how to run “our” property to or desire while someone else fights to run “our” property to his.

[Spiral Architect]

Car owners set terms for their property that you can agree to or ignore. You can choose to do what you wish but you cannot force drivers to cater to your whims and run their life to your convenience. You do not have a right to force yourself on the car owner as if you earned their life’s work and force them to obey you. If you don’t like how they drive their car, then you simply post "No Trespassing", or provide transportation for visitors according to whatever terms you do like.

Of course the car owner should have right to do what he wants with his car. This does not allow him do dictate my property however no more than I can dictate his. I can set terms of use however just as you could if I rode in your car (say smoking or non-smoking).

Look, let’s say I buy a bunch of property along Lake Michigan up here and make a private scenic drive. I set up observation points, beaches, likely a restaurant or something. Basically it is the original type of Parkway from before WWII. As part of terms of driving on my property I can dictate things like seatbelts, smoking, and music decibels as part of the agreement of using my property. At that point you can agree to these terms because you want to drive on my road and visit my locations, or you can choose not to because you would rather cruise without the belts and play music loud.

Trust me; I get it, spent many a summer in the 80’s with the future Mrs. Architect driving the coasts of Michigan, both of us camped on my side of the good old ’76 Buick making seatbelts useless while blasting Iron Maiden or Flock of Seagulls. I get the desire. That version of me likely would NOT have chosen to drive on a road that set those terms.

Back to brass tacks, if you say, “No, I will not wear my seatbelt”, I cannot force you to do so but I can choose not to let you drive on my road or use my property. In the same way, you can choose to ignore your seatbelt and only do business with those that agree to such a term.

We each have a right to use our property the way we want but not to force the other. If we disagree we shake hands and walk away.

[Devil's Advocate]

Back to brass tacks, if you say, “No, I will not wear my seatbelt”, I cannot force you to do so but I can choose not to let you drive on my road or use my property. In the same way, you can choose to ignore your seatbelt and only do business with those that agree to such a term.

Yes, I may choose to agree to buckle up in order to use your road, however my acquiescence doesn't confer legitimacy to your terms of use, because your terms violate my right to property (of my car). The violation of a right doesn't become legitimate because someone agrees to it. Again:

"Any alleged 'right' of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right." ~ Property Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon

My position is that the legitimacy of a right to property, as the implementation of a right to life, depends on maintaining an equal respect for the right to life (and property) of your trading partner. For example, a private road owner cannot place IEDs on his road and invite others to agree to using it. Why then is it legitimate for him to ask others to limit the safe operation of their vehicles (by telling them how to use their seat belts) while on his road?

[Spiral Architect]

You should brush up on that section before taking a quote out of context. There is a huge difference between contracts and forcing people to do something.

I am not violating your rights. Setting terms to a contractual agreement based on free association, one where we can agree or not, is not a violation of a right. If I forced you to use my road that would be a violation of your right just as you want to force me to allow people on my property despite my wishes; you’re reversing the principle here. I am not forcing you to do anything outside decide whether you want to agree to terms of a trade. You can do what you want on your property or others. Forcing trade on people is, however, a violation of rights.

A right is a right to action. A right is a right to dispose of your own property as you see fit. If I want to limit my property I can. If I want to open my property I can. You can drive your car how you want. You cannot drive your car willy-nilly on my property and pretend you have a right to force those terms on me.

Think of this in reverse. Let’s say I do allow people to drive without seatbelts on my Parkway Road. Further, let’s say I grab a few cold beers and we go cruising together on it. You tell me your car is non-smoking - Now I don’t have a right to force you to let me smoke in your car because that “violates my rights”. I have to agree to your terms when I got in your car because it is your property. Hell, you could force me to wear the seatbelt if you wanted, again because you have the right to set the terms of how others use your property.

[Dante]

The difference being, the landlord owns the house and property, but not the vehicle which is his guest's property. Therefore he isn't entitled (as a property right) to coerce vehicle owner into wearing seat belts, or not to.

But this helps to prove DonAthos' point, not yours. Because surely the guest owns his own mouth, which he is using to make racist jokes. So in asking him to leave, the homeowner is saying, "You cannot use your own property (your mouth) on my property any way you want. It's your mouth, but it's my house, so if you want to spout racism with it, get out." The roadowner could surely say the same thing to the driver about how he uses his car.

Everywhere I go, I am encased in a sphere of my own property - my body. That doesn't mean I can do anything with it. The same goes if I am further encased in my vehicle.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Dante

[Devil's Advocate]

I am not violating your rights. Setting terms to a contractual agreement based on free association, one where we can agree or not, is not a violation of a right.

The position that bartering away the implementation of a right to life, isn't a violation of that right, undermines the source of the right being implemented.

If I forced you to use my road that would be a violation of your right just as you want to force me to allow people on my property despite my wishes; you’re reversing the principle here. I am not forcing you to do anything outside decide whether you want to agree to terms of a trade. You can do what you want on your property or others. Forcing trade on people is, however, a violation of rights.

We are in agreement on the issue of force; you'd needn't keep returning to it...

A right is a right to action. A right is a right to dispose of your own property as you see fit. If I want to limit my property I can. If I want to open my property I can. You can drive your car how you want. You cannot drive your car willy-nilly on my property and pretend you have a right to force those terms on me.

Maintaining the safe operation of my vehicle on your road isn't driving "willy-nilly", and not wearing my seat belts certainly doesn't infringe on the ownership of your property.

[Devil's Advocate]

But this helps to prove DonAthos' point, not yours. Because surely the guest owns his own mouth, which he is using to make racist jokes. So in asking him to leave, the homeowner is saying, "You cannot use your own property (your mouth) on my property any way you want. It's your mouth, but it's my house, so if you want to spout racism with it, get out." The roadowner could surely say the same thing to the driver about how he uses his car.

A foul mouthed guest is at least having an effect on the host and his property... What effect does wearing seat belts in a vehicle NOT owned by the host have on his property?

Everywhere I go, I am encased in a sphere of my own property - my body. That doesn't mean I can do anything with it. The same goes if I am further encased in my vehicle.

I agree; there are limits to legitimate interaction between individuals with equal rights to self preservation; the legitimacy of a right to property depends on it. The threshold of legitimacy is crossed the moment one attempts to negotiate away the right to life of another. The landlord is essentially undermining the legitimacy of his own right to property by failing to respect a vehicle owner's right to their property.

[Craig24]

Maintaining the safe operation of my vehicle on your road isn't driving "willy-nilly", and not wearing my seat belts certainly doesn't infringe on the ownership of your property.

Establishing rules for the use of my road doesn't violate any of your rights at all, including your right to buckle up or not buckle up. I don't understand your objection here.

[Dante]

A foul mouthed guest is at least having an effect on the host and his property... What effect does wearing seat belts in a vehicle NOT owned by the host have on his property?

Someone dying on my property doesn't affect me at all?

[Devil's Advocate]

Establishing rules for the use of my road doesn't violate any of your rights at all, including your right to buckle up or not buckle up. I don't understand your objection here.

My objection is to the legitimacy of a term of use for property (based on a right to property, e.g. real estate) that negates a term of use for property (based on a right to property of another, e.g. a car). This presents a contradiction to me...

[Craig24]

My objection is to the legitimacy of a term of use for property (based on a right to property, e.g. real estate) that negates a term of use for property (based on a right to property of another, e.g. a car). This presents a contradiction to me...

What's the contradiction? You are using my road. I set the rules of use, including the rule "buckle up". How does the fact that the car is yours make my rule a rights violation?

[Devil's Advocate]

Someone dying on my property doesn't affect me at all?

In this case you are presuming responsibility for the life of your guest... By what right? Suppose I agree to buckle up, drive into a lake, cannot be pulled from my vehicle (because the seat belt won't release) and drown... Does your seat belt regulation make you more or less responsible for my death?

Why presume responsibility in the first place?

[Craig24]

In this case you are presuming responsibility for the life of your guest... By what right? Suppose I agree to buckle up, drive into a lake, cannot be pulled from my vehicle (because the seat belt won't release) and drown... Does your seat belt regulation make you more or less responsible for my death?

Why presume responsibility in the first place?

Does the reason to do so matter? Does my method by which I do so matter? What matters is that the road is mine. Obey the rules or you will not be permitted to use my road. Does it need to be more complicated than this?