Are seatbelt laws legitimate, within the context of government control

[Devil's Advocate]

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?

Your rule violates the use of my property. You can legitimately hold me responsible for reckless driving on your property, but your legitimate sphere of influence ends at the perimeter of my car, because you haven't negotiated for the ownership of it.

[Craig24]

Your rule violates the use of my property. You can legitimately hold me responsible for reckless driving on your property, but your legitimate sphere of influence ends at the perimeter of my car, because you haven't negotiated for the ownership of it.

But your vehicle will be entirely within the boundaries of my road so it will not matter if the car is yours or not. If I made a rule "no alcohol on my property", would it make a difference if you own the beer and the glass?

[Devil's Advocate]

Does the reason to do so matter? Does my method by which I do so matter?

No it doesn't... That's my point. The likelihood of my death on your property isn't effected by wearing, or not wearing seat belts that you don't own. What matters is that I ought to be allowed to make that choice, because it legitimizes your choice to set rules that do matter regarding the ownership of your property.

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?

It only becomes complicated when one property owner negotiates with another from a position that negates the equity of a right to life (as the source of all rights), and its implementation.

It reminds me of the Russian view of détente which was essentially, "What is mine, is obviously mine... what is yours, we can negotiate."

Edited September 3, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

But your vehicle will be entirely within the boundaries of my road so it will not matter if the car is yours or not.

It does until I negotiate away the title to my vehicle. Everything else, up to and including bodies in my trunk, is mine to dispose of by the same right to property a landlord claims.

[thenelli01]

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

Why even ask that question? It is irrelevant.

[Craig24]

It only becomes complicated when one property owner negotiates with another from a position that negates the equity of a right to life (as the source of all rights), and its implementation.

You need my permission to dive on my road. Buckle up and stay buckled up, and you have my permission. You say "I don't want to". Permission denied. What is your recourse?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Craig24

[Craig24]

It does until I negotiate away the title to my vehicle. Everything else, up to and including bodies in my trunk, is mine to dispose of by the same right to property a landlord claims.

It's not a negotiation. I refuse to permit drivers who will not buckle up to use my road. The bodies in your trunk?? Really? I think you have a much larger problem with the police than you do with me at this point.

[Devil's Advocate]

You need my permission to dive on my road. Buckle up and stay buckled up, and you have my permission. You say "I don't want to". Permission denied. What is your recourse?

Choose, "to suffer, while evils are sufferable" (source Preamble, Declaration of Independence) your illegitimate rule, to challenge it in a court of law, or to find an alternate route. Bear in mind that by challenging your rule in a court of law, you will be relying on the government's use of seat belt regulation to win your case, which nearly everyone in this thread questions the legitimacy of.

I might also choose to thumb my nose at your silly rule, taking the same route others who cross you property do, to determine what your recourse is...

[Devil's Advocate]

It's not a negotiation. I refuse to permit drivers who will not buckle up to use my road. The bodies in your trunk?? Really? I think you have a much larger problem with the police than you do with me at this point.

LOL, I'll take the 5th on that one...

Of course it's a negotiation; unless your road is gated with a guard checking for seat belts, turning away anyone who objects, and patrolled for violations. Suppose I'm driving a classic car that doesn't have seat belts, or am a passenger on a bus (equally beltless). How much effort (and expense) are you willing to put into enforcing your alleged right to require seat belts, as a rule that has zero effect on the maintenance of your property??

Edited September 3, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Craig24]

LOL, I'll take the 5th on that one...

Of course it's a negotiation; unless your road is gated with a guard checking for seat belts, turning away anyone who objects, and patrolled for violations. Suppose I'm driving a classic car that doesn't have seat belts, or am a passenger on a bus (equally beltless). How much effort (and expense) are you willing to put into enforcing your alleged right to require seat belts, as a rule that has zero effect on the maintenance of your property??

The effort it takes to enforce the rule is not relevant and neither is the effect on maintenance. You are missing the point. You want jurisdiction over the rules of conduct on my road. You want to limit my judgement and my action regarding the use of my property by others who have no right to it at all. That's the only effect that is relevant.

[Devil's Advocate]

At this point, given the OP has yet to reappear, and there's consensus on the primary issue of government seat belt regulation being illegitimate, I'll withdraw until something new is presented that hasn't already been discussed...

... and no Craig, I don't want jurisdiction over the rules of conduct on your road; I want jurisdiction over the rules of conduct in the property of my car that have zero effect on the property of your road.

finis

Edited September 3, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Craig24]

... and no Craig, I don't want jurisdiction over the rules of conduct on your road; I want jurisdiction over the rules of conduct in the property of my car that have zero effect on the property of your road.

finis

If you need my permission to drive your car on my road in the first place, how do justify the right to unbuckle your belt if it violates my rules? This position is a contradiction. It says that I have the right to deny you access to my road period but that I don't have the right to deny you access to my road if you don't buckle up. What's the operating principle at work here and what would this imply for businesses with dress codes like "jacket and tie required" or "men only" clubs?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Craig24

[Devil's Advocate]

If you need my permission to drive your car on my road in the first place, how do justify the right to unbuckle your belt if it violates my rules? This position is a contradiction. It says that I have the right to deny you access to my road period but that I don't have the right to deny you access to my road if you don't buckle up. What's the operating principle at work here and what would this imply for businesses with dress codes like "jacket and tie required" or "men only" clubs?

We agree a property owner has the right to deny use of their property to anyone. We disagree that the legitimacy of this right can be maintained by entering into a contractual agreement wherein respect for the property of one party comes at the expense of respect for the property of another, e.g. a car owner agrees to surrender the disposition of his vehicle in order to obtain use of a private road.

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ Individual Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon

You, et al, believe that property within property is legitimately subsumed by an outer shell of rights; I believe that position contradicts the consistency of implementation which a right to property depends on for legitimacy. Your seat belt rules are not a legitimate extension of your property rights because they dispose of property you don't own. And if it doesn't matter whether you own my vehicle to dispose of it, why should it matter whether or not I agree to the disposal of your property?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[thenelli01]

We agree a property owner has the right to deny use of their property to anyone. We disagree that the legitimacy of this right can be maintained by entering into a contractual agreement wherein respect for the property of one party comes at the expense of respect for the property of another, e.g. a car owner agrees to surrender the disposition of his vehicle in order to obtain use of a private road.

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ Individual Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon

You, et al, believe that property within property is legitimately subsumed by an outer shell of rights; I believe that position contradicts the consistency of implementation which a right to property depends on for legitimacy. Your seat belt rules are not a legitimate extension of your property rights because they dispose of property you don't own. And if it doesn't matter whether you own my vehicle to dispose of it, why should it matter whether or not I agree to the disposal of your property?

Do business owners have the right to issue dress codes to obtain use of night clubs?

[Spiral Architect]

[

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.

Your right to life is not a right to force me to cater to your demands. Your right to life is a right to self-generating action, not to the actions of others. I can set the terms of an agreement and you can choose to agree to them or not, and vice versa. In the reverse, I cannot force you to drive on my road and if you refuse I'd loose the income.

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

I'll keep returning for as long as you want to force people to obey your terms. I’m offering terms to a deal, your dictating terms that I have to obey. You have a choice, I would not. That is force.

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.

Telling me you will disrespect the terms of how I want my property used is doing whatever you want, and yes it violates the terms of our agreement. It would be the same thing if I told you seatbelts are optional up front then halfway through the trip a Parkway Patrol reprimanded you for not doing it. Then I would be violating the agreement.

I can very well decide people can only use my road if they drive muscle cars with fuzzy dice while blasting "Ride of the Valkyries", then boot everyone out if they don't do it. You can decide that my terms are bad and refuse to trade with me then walk away. Neither of us has a right to force our standards on someone else to gain access to his property.

You seem to be obsessed with the idea I’m telling you how to use your car in this scenario. I am not. You can choose to do whatever you want with the car outside of the fact you can’t force me to accept it too. If we don’t agree to terms we shake hands and walk away.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Spiral Architect

[Spiral Architect]

Do business owners have the right to issue dress codes to obtain use of night clubs?

Evidently not – This boils down to rights being a claim ticket to someone else’s property.

[Spiral Architect]

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?

Property ownership does not need to be justified. I can have a good reason, like the fact a car going 60 mph that crashes will eject the driver from the seat at 20 g-forces resulting in his lungs getting pushed through the steering wheel like Jell-O through a colander (true story), or a bad reason like I’m the Mayor of New York with a Mommy complex. Maybe the scenic route I built has lots of hills and grades that are not safe so I enforce speed limits and safety belts, or maybe my daughter was killed in a car accident and I can’t bare to see another family go through that. My motivation can be the welfare of others or to protect me from lawsuits.

The reason, whether good, bad, or just smart business is irrelevant outside of that fact that if it is bad it is likely not in your best interest to do business with the person in the first place.

[Devil's Advocate]

Property ownership does not need to be justified... The reason, whether good, bad, or just smart business is irrelevant outside of that fact that if it is bad it is likely not in your best interest to do business with the person in the first place.

Do you believe that the statement I quoted above, about individuals having an obligation, derived by the nature of reality, to respect the rights of others if they want their own rights to be respected, doesn't apply to contractual agreements? That is the hanging point for me, in terms of the legitimacy of any agreement. You seem to be saying that legitimacy and justification are irrelevant to the terms of any contract between willing parties... Is this correct?

Edited September 4, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Spiral Architect]

Do you believe that the statement I quoted above, about individuals having an obligation, derived by the nature of reality, to respect the rights of others if they want their own rights to be respected, doesn't apply to contractual agreements? That is the hanging point for me, in terms of the legitimacy of any agreement. You seem to be saying that legitimacy and justification are irrelevant to the terms of any contract between willing parties... Is this correct?

Sorry, I missed that quote or I would have addressed the subject better.

"The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ Individual Rights, Ayn Rand Lexicon

Recognizing the rights of others is being consistent - I will not force you to dispose of your property and I require you to not dictate the disposal of mine. A right is a right to personal action, not to force the actions of others. I think we agree.

Consistency is me telling you that I will not force you to do something and I expect you to not force me to do something. This is respecting the rights of others. I will respect your right to live and do so with self-sustaining action. Where we disagree is that you see this as if I’m telling you what to do with your car while I see you telling me what to do with my road. Generally speaking, we’re both offended at what we consider an attack on our right to dispose of our property.

Outside of force however, there is not conflict. We both have property and when we trade then we both have a right to establish terms of that trade. Establishing terms is not an act of force; it is an act of negotiating property disposal so both parties agree to the terms. I can decide to set terms for my road and you can set terms for what your cash will buy. I can decide to require seatbelts and you can decide to never spend money on a business that would require you to do this. If we come to terms then we both have a contractual agreement that must be observed otherwise you get into fraud. If we do not come to terms then we shake hands and walk away, neither man forced to dispose of his property in a way he did not want.

In this example, I require someone to wear a seatbelt as a condition of using my property and nothing more. Now, you can say “No” because you do not want people to dictate this to you, and that is fine. Don’t make the trade. I use to refuse to go to some bars and hotels because I did not accept their terms. As an example, my wife smokes and establishments in Michigan could once decide for themselves to be smoking or non-smoking (they legally can no longer do this), I refused to go to places that were non-smoking on principle. At the time, I was angrier about this then my wife ironically but now she gets it since it was a prelude to a total ban.

This case of road owner “versus” car owner is the same thing. The restaurant did not violate my rights because the property owner had the right to set terms of trade and I had the right to refuse. Today my rights and the restaurateur’s rights are violated since the Government ban forces me and the restaurants to trade one way despite our wishes. In this case a handful of non-smokers are forcing their whims on the rest of us.

Does this help?

[Devil's Advocate]

Recognizing the rights of others is being consistent - I will not force you to dispose of your property and I require you to not dictate the disposal of mine. A right is a right to personal action, not to force the actions of others. I think we agree.

Yes

Consistency is me telling you that I will not force you to do something and I expect you to not force me to do something. This is respecting the rights of others. I will respect your right to live and do so with self-sustaining action. Where we disagree is that you see this as if I’m telling you what to do with your car while I see you telling me what to do with my road. Generally speaking, we’re both offended at what we consider an attack on our right to dispose of our property.

The distinction I've been laboring to make is, having an inconsistent respect for the rights of others isn't delimited to acts of coercion; having respect for the right to live and do so with self-sustaining action means not asking others to do otherwise. Consider John Galt's oath: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Why is the phrase, "ask another man" used instead of, "force another man"?

Would John Galt consider it appropriate to ask another man, as a term of contract, to live for his sake??

I understand that any party can walk away from a bad deal, but does the sanction of the victim make the practice of evil legitimate???

Suppose a private road owner says, "You may use my road if you allow me to shoot at you for target practice." Is killing or maiming someone a legitimate term of property use to ask for, or agree to?

Edited September 4, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Spiral Architect]

I’m no law expert I believe threatening someone is still illegal even if couched in terms of an agreement. Either way, threatening someone either directly or offering to make it a game makes someone a sociopath and you should run from them. As fast as you can.

If Galt owned a road he would likely run it as logically as possible until he could sell it to Dagny, but that being said he would not consider setting terms of property use to be the ethical equivalent of his oath. Galt’s oath is Rand’s knack of distilling the huge fields of ethics into a simple phrase. In this case it identifies the prime values in action while identifying one of the cardinal sins. The oath is about the fundamental nature of man and ethics, not terms of trade where people can freely associate and walk away.

Frankly, I doubt Galt would set such a term but Francisco might for his mine workers in the mountains when traveling back and forth to work. It’s all about context, and in this case wearing a seatbelt to work could be no different then requiring a helmet while working a copper mine.

[Devil's Advocate]

I’m no law expert I believe threatening someone is still illegal even if couched in terms of an agreement. Either way, threatening someone either directly or offering to make it a game makes someone a sociopath and you should run from them. As fast as you can.

It's my understanding that acceptance of a risky proposition doesn't shelter service providers from culpability for death or injury resulting from negligence. In any case, my last question specifically asks if a sociopath with property can legitimately endanger the lives of his guests, provided he obtains their permission. My view has been adequately expressed, and your response is dodgy, so I'll shake hands and allow you to walk away from this one.

[DonAthos]

The distinction I've been laboring to make is, having an inconsistent respect for the rights of others isn't delimited to acts of coercion; having respect for the right to live and do so with self-sustaining action means not asking others to do otherwise.

I believe you misunderstand. Having an inconsistent respect for the rights of others is delimited to acts of coercion.

That which is not coercive -- trade via consent -- is based upon individuals respecting each others' rights. The landowner respects the rights of the vehicle driver to choose whether or not to drive on his road per the terms he sets; the vehicle driver respects the right of the landowner to set those terms, and then chooses to agree to them or not. It is this mutual respect which makes the trade possible, and allows it to be beneficial for both parties (for if either of them does not find the terms of trade beneficial, they may decline them).

Consider John Galt's oath: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Why is the phrase, "ask another man" used instead of, "force another man"?

Would John Galt consider it appropriate to ask another man, as a term of contract, to live for his sake??

But consider that telling someone that they must wear a seatbelt to drive on some stretch of road is not at all the same thing as "living for someone else's sake."

The deal that the landowner presents is an appeal to the vehicle driver's self-interest, as is the basis of all good trade. He's not saying, "Wear a seatbelt for my sake; because you have an ethical responsibility to me, a moral imperative to do as I command." He's saying, "Wear a seatbelt for your own sake, that you may drive on my road; because you desire to drive on my road, and these are the terms by which you may accomplish what you want."

Your interpretation of Galt's oath, contrariwise, would make any terms of any trade unreasonable. For what contract does not ask something of its constituents that they would not ordinarily agree to, except in expectation of what they hope to receive through that contract?

Even such informal, implied contracts as an ordinary purchase. Consider jeans in the store:

"If you'd like to buy those jeans, you must pay me $20."

"But I don't want to pay you $20. I just want the jeans. Galt would never ask a man to live for his sake, and neither should you!"

Our situation is just like that. Here is the substitution of particular terms:

"If you'd like to drive my road, you must wear a seatbelt."

"But I don't want to wear a seatbelt. I just want to drive your road. Galt would... etc!"

I understand that any party can walk away from a bad deal, but does the sanction of the victim make the practice of evil legitimate???

But having terms in a trade does not necessarily make a deal "bad," let alone "evil." What makes you think that agreeing to wear a seatbelt for the purpose of driving a particular road is a "bad deal"?

It's for the vehicle owner to decide whether those are good terms or not -- whether the deal is good or bad -- just as he must decide whether the jeans are worth $20. If he agrees to trade he is no "victim," but an equal party to a mutual agreement. And what evil here are we supposed to be legitimizing again...? Is it telling someone that they need to wear a seatbelt? Do you find this evil according to the particular scenario -- something wrong with seatbelts in themselves? Or is it asking anyone to do anything in order to receive benefit in kind?

Is it evil to charge $20 for a pair of jeans? If not, then why should it be evil to charge seatbelt-wearing for access to a road?

[Devil's Advocate]

Having an inconsistent respect for the rights of others is delimited to acts of coercion.

Then you believe a sociopath with property can legitimately endanger the lives of his guests, provided he obtains their permission... Is this correct?

But having terms in a trade does not necessarily make a deal "bad," let alone "evil." What makes you think that agreeing to wear a seatbelt for the purpose of driving a particular road is a "bad deal"?

It would depend on the driver's consideration of the safe operation of his vehicle. If he agrees with seat belt regulation, then the road is being offered at no charge to him; if not, then the charge is whatever value he places on his life. These are two very different charges for use of the same stretch of road. Asking $20 from every driver is a very different proposition than asking some drivers to risk their lives; it seems to me a very arbitrary implementation of the right to life.

And I find it curious that Galt's oath, as an expression of Ayn Rand's view of Man as a contractual animal, either has no relation to the legitimacy of contracts, or implies that it's OK to barter away the very source that makes property rights legitimate.

[Craig24]

Then you believe a sociopath with property can legitimately endanger the lives of his guests, provided he obtains their permission... Is this correct?

Scenario 1: "If you want to drive on my road - wear your safety belt"

1) This scenario requires YOU to act (wear the belt) IF you consent to terms.

2) Your life is NOT endangered.

Scenario 2: "If you want to drive on my road - I will shoot at you"

1) This scenario permits ME to injure or kill you (or at least try) IF you consent to terms.

2) Your life IS endangered.

This is too easy to dismiss as a legitimate analogy, particularly since scenario 2 is illegal.

Your original claim was that the seat belt rule as a contractual term is a rights violation but you haven't demonstrated coercion and then you move the goal post and make endangerment the standard by which to judge what kind of terms are legitimate even though applying that standard doesn't work when the terms are safe. Why even make the attempt?