Are seatbelt laws legitimate, within the context of government control

[DonAthos]

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

I can only vaguely follow how you get from the things we were discussing (e.g. jeans; rude houseguests; etc.) to... uh... "sociopaths"? We were talking about seatbelts a minute ago, yes? And then I think I brought up a jeans example, asking some questions that you haven't answered, and... I'm confused.

But how about this: I believe in a right to suicide. So if someone wanted to kill himself in a manner that was congruent with some "sociopath's" desire, and if they agreed upon terms, then I don't guess I'd have much of a problem with that.* Can you tell me why I should?

*Note: if they don't want to die, but the sociopath's terms "legitimately endanger" their lives, then I guess they should turn the sociopath down. Right?

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.

Whether we agree or not that the landlord is offering "a very different proposition" to one driver versus another, I don't think there's any rule against the landlord setting different terms for different people.

What is crucial in any event is that the driver is free to accept or refuse the landlord's terms. If he doesn't agree with seat belt regulation, thinking it somehow contrary to "the safe operation of his vehicle" (which... doesn't strike me as too bright, but let that pass), then he's free to say, "no; I will not drive upon your road, given those terms."

That's the consistent/non-arbitrary implementation of the "right to life" that you're looking for. The driver is free to do what he wills. He just can't demand the landlord's help (via use of his property, for instance) without coming to terms, because in keeping with our consistent/non-arbitrary implementation of the "right to life," we must be equally respectful of the landlord.

[Devil's Advocate]

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?

My original claim was (and remains) that contradictory terms regarding the respect/disposal of personal property aren't legitimate. The legitimacy of the road owner's terms for the use of his property, depend on having an equal respect for the driver's property. It's one thing to pay a toll, i.e. transfer property from one party to another, or to hold the driver responsible for any damages to the road owner's property, but wearing (or not wearing) seat belts accomplishes neither. The acceptance of a contradictory term doesn't legitimize it. The addition of endangerment to the scenario is an attempt to see how far an illegitimate term will be tolerated.

[Devil's Advocate]

I appreciate your candor, DonAthos... I also believe an individual has the right to dispose of their life as they choose; a right to life isn't a mandate to live.

My introduction of the sociopath was following on an exchange with Spiral Architect. It seems like a logical expansion of the freedom a landlord might claim flowing from a right to their property. If the legitimacy of any request depends solely on a title to property, why wouldn't sociopaths be allowed to barter for lives willing to be endangered? In my mind, there's little difference between seat belt regulation (as a legitimate term of use), and tampering with the safe operation of property that doesn't belong to you. Wouldn't it be equally legitimate to grant permission to use a road, provided the driver agrees to having his brakes disabled?

In another scenario, suppose my car is stolen and abandoned on your property. Does it remain legitimate for you (as the circumstantial possessor of stolen property) to require me to wear seat belts in order to retrieve my car from your road? Why should the circumstance of my car appearing on your road have any greater effect on legitimacy, in transactions between property owners, than your road appearing under my car??

I think the Objectivist position has been clearly (and patiently) expressed on the issue of private seat belt regulation, and I appreciate all the feedback I've been given. I'm fascinated with the issue of rights, but I don't want to wear out my welcome on this road.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Spiral Architect]

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.

Really? Dodgy, no. I adressed what I considered important. That question was a non-issue at best and a straw man at worse, having nothing to do with the task at hand.

First, to answer your question, no I do not consider it legitimate. That is why I said run. If your stupid enough to accept the terms then you likely have the Government you deserve. What any of this has to do with conditions of purchasing road passage is beyond me.

If you want me to be more direct then I will say it this way - No you cannot force someone to trade with you against his will because you don't like the terms he sets. If you don't like the price then you can put put on your big-boy pants and walk away. Or how about building your own road and running it how you want instead of forcing others to do it for you. Be a producer, not a looter that wants to go the Union route of forcing agreements on people agaisnt their will.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Spiral Architect

[Spiral Architect]

I appreciate your candor, DonAthos... I also believe an individual has the right to dispose of their life as they choose; a right to life isn't a mandate to live.

My introduction of the sociopath was following on an exchange with Spiral Architect. It seems like a logical expansion of the freedom a landlord might claim flowing from a right to their property. If the legitimacy of any request depends solely on a title to property, why wouldn't sociopaths be allowed to barter for lives willing to be endangered? In my mind, there's little difference between seat belt regulation (as a legitimate term of use), and tampering with the safe operation of property that doesn't belong to you. Wouldn't it be equally legitimate to grant permission to use a road, provided the driver agrees to having his brakes disabled?

In another scenario, suppose my car is stolen and abandoned on your property. Does it remain legitimate for you (as the circumstantial possessor of stolen property) to require me to wear seat belts in order to retrieve my car from your road? Why should the circumstance of my car appearing on your road have any greater effect on legitimacy, in transactions between property owners, than your road appearing under my car??

I think the Objectivist position has been clearly (and patiently) expressed on the issue of private seat belt regulation, and I appreciate all the feedback I've been given. I'm fascinated with the issue of rights, but I don't want to wear out my welcome on this road.

I somehow missed this when posting, so I'll add:

1. You are trying to derive ethical answers from emergency situations. Ethics is about day-to-day life and tells you how to live on earth, not in emergency situations that are not the norm. A sociopath means run, and no I would not put on my seatbelt while trying to get away from him

2. You're not wearing out your welcome, at least from my perspective. Not that I have been around long but the people here seem to be fine with good debates as long as they are civil. In fact, a good debate helps one clarify ones thinking

[Devil's Advocate]

First, to answer your question, no I do not consider it legitimate.

Neither do I.

I'm not saying a road owner (sociopath or otherwise) should be forced to allow me to determine the safe operation of my vehicle; I'm saying his request, as a term, isn't legitimate if it doesn't respect the implementation of my right to life (as well as his). Even if I accept his term, it doesn't become legitimate. That's the beginning and end of the point I've been trying to make (however poorly).

Edited September 5, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[DonAthos]

...an individual has the right to dispose of their life as they choose; a right to life isn't a mandate to live.

Quoted and set apart because I think this bears directly on your question of "the sociopath's terms."

My introduction of the sociopath was following on an exchange with Spiral Architect. It seems like a logical expansion of the freedom a landlord might claim flowing from a right to their property. If the legitimacy of any request depends solely on a title to property...

Consider your terminology "the legitimacy of any request." What, in your mind, makes a request "legitimate" or "illegitimate"?

If I offer to sell you a pen for a dollar or a million dollars, is there any discrepancy between the "legitimacy" of my terms/"requests"? Or if I ask you to strip naked and wallow in the mud on a live Internet feed for a million dollars, or for no remuneration whatever... is one offer legitimate versus the other? (Or can such a "request" never be a legitimate one, per its nature?)

What does the nature of my "request" here matter, apart from your freedom to exercise your own discretion in agreeing to my terms or refusing to deal?

If you're looking for a respect for your life, liberty, property, etc., it is all contained in that each of these terms utterly depends upon your own agreement, else it cannot happen. Since you have "the right to dispose of your life as you choose," as you've said above, you have the right to agree to my terms or not. Doesn't that follow?

...why wouldn't sociopaths be allowed to barter for lives willing to be endangered?

So, I'm hoping that we can carry this off without getting into psychology and the nature of sociopathy, but I find the introduction of the term a little... sensationalist.

After all, does a person need to be a "sociopath" to offer a life-endangering deal? (And apart from clinical diagnosis, whether accurate or not, how would you know you were dealing with a bona fide sociopath?)

What do you make of dangerous professions, such as arctic fishing, coal mining, fire fighting, military, etc., where people often receive a flat fee for putting their lives into direct jeopardy? Or pastimes like bungee or base diving where people pay for the experience? Does it matter whether the person with which they deal is psychologically sound? And if a sociopath barters $20 for a pair of jeans, does the fact of his sociopathy invalidate the terms of his deal?

The central question, sociopath or not, remains the same, and is resolved by your initial statement quoted above:

...an individual has the right to dispose of their life as they choose; a right to life isn't a mandate to live.

If you grant this, then an individual must also have the right to accept the seatbelt terms of the landowner if he chooses, whether this bears a risk to his life or no.

And finally consider a question such as the practice of Dr. Kevorkian, or those who market "suicide kits." The terms of deals such as these are not "life-endangering," but life-ending. And while I don't believe "sociopathy" to be at play in these cases, I don't doubt that some would describe the players in such terms. Beyond that, what does it matter? If Dr. Kevorkian were a sociopath who got off on ending the life of his partners-in-trade, yet they still got what they bargained for, then on what grounds should society intervene?

In my mind, there's little difference between seat belt regulation (as a legitimate term of use), and tampering with the safe operation of property that doesn't belong to you. Wouldn't it be equally legitimate to grant permission to use a road, provided the driver agrees to having his brakes disabled?

"Legitimate" in the sense we've been discussing; as in, the landlord has the right to set such a term, provided someone else agrees to it? Yes.

Equally sensible or likely? No. And I cannot imagine that the landlord would find many takers, if any, unless they are the kind of thrill-seeker who would disable his own brakes for a joyride anyways. (Perhaps it isn't luge season.)

In another scenario, suppose my car is stolen and abandoned on your property. Does it remain legitimate for you (as the circumstantial possessor of stolen property) to require me to wear seat belts in order to retrieve my car from your road? Why should the circumstance of my car appearing on your road have any greater effect on legitimacy, in transactions between property owners, than your road appearing under my car??

For now, I'd rather discuss the other matters I've responded to. This new scenario, I suspect, has a lot of hidden complexity to it. But we can certainly come back to it, if need be.

I think the Objectivist position has been clearly (and patiently) expressed on the issue of private seat belt regulation, and I appreciate all the feedback I've been given. I'm fascinated with the issue of rights, but I don't want to wear out my welcome on this road.

Please don't take my continued reply as a mandate for your participation, and thank you for the discussion! (Though if you choose to continue to respond, it is still welcome.)

[Devil's Advocate]

Quoted and set apart because I think this bears directly on your question of "the sociopath's terms."

It reflects what I believe is the consequence of having a right to life; that one can opt out.

Consider your terminology "the legitimacy of any request." What, in your mind, makes a request "legitimate" or "illegitimate"? ... Doesn't that follow?

I evaluate legitimacy according to a principle of moral reciprocity; not acquiescence. Legitimacy can be defined as, "according to law", or "conforming to accepted rules and standards"; I favor the latter. If your seat belt regulation is non-negotiable, then the premise of your trade is, "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable". Whatever follows isn't based on a mutual respect for the disposal of each others property.

So, I'm hoping that we can carry this off without getting into psychology and the nature of sociopathy, but I find the introduction of the term a little... sensationalist.

After all, does a person need to be a "sociopath" to offer a life-endangering deal? (And apart from clinical diagnosis, whether accurate or not, how would you know you were dealing with a bona fide sociopath?)

What do you make of dangerous professions, such as arctic fishing, coal mining, fire fighting, military, etc., where people often receive a flat fee for putting their lives into direct jeopardy? Or pastimes like bungee or base diving where people pay for the experience? Does it matter whether the person with which they deal is psychologically sound? And if a sociopath barters $20 for a pair of jeans, does the fact of his sociopathy invalidate the terms of his deal?

The central question, sociopath or not, remains the same, and is resolved by your initial statement quoted above:

At this point I'd rather discuss the legitimacy of the terms being offered than the mental state of the offerer of the terms, but I can come back to these questions if need be...

If you grant this, then an individual must also have the right to accept the seatbelt terms of the landowner if he chooses, whether this bears a risk to his life or no.

And finally consider a question such as the practice of Dr. Kevorkian, or those who market "suicide kits." The terms of deals such as these are not "life-endangering," but life-ending. And while I don't believe "sociopathy" to be at play in these cases, I don't doubt that some would describe the players in such terms. Beyond that, what does it matter? If Dr. Kevorkian were a sociopath who got off on ending the life of his partners-in-trade, yet they still got what they bargained for, then on what grounds should society intervene?

The only issue I have with your introduction of Dr. Kevorkian, is that I believe it isn't legitimate to barter away a right to life; what reciprocal value is being traded? Essentially, hiring the good doctor as a consultant is legitimate; as an executioner - not so much...

"Legitimate" in the sense we've been discussing; as in, the landlord has the right to set such a term, provided someone else agrees to it? Yes.

This remains a bone of contention between us. Certainly the landlord has the ability to ask for whatever he wants, and may or may not have it agreed to... that doesn't make it a legitimate request.

For now, I'd rather discuss the other matters I've responded to. This new scenario, I suspect, has a lot of hidden complexity to it. But we can certainly come back to it, if need be.

Agreed

[Spiral Architect]

Neither do I.

I'm not saying a road owner (sociopath or otherwise) should be forced to allow me to determine the safe operation of my vehicle; I'm saying his request, as a term, isn't legitimate if it doesn't respect the implementation of my right to life (as well as his). Even if I accept his term, it doesn't become legitimate. That's the beginning and end of the point I've been trying to make (however poorly).

So basically you are saying it is in poor taste for him to make that part of the deal since it is really none of his business. I can understand that and have refused to do business with people for like reasons.

[Devil's Advocate]

So basically you are saying it is in poor taste for him to make that part of the deal since it is really none of his business. I can understand that and have refused to do business with people for like reasons.

Basically yes... It may (or may not) be legally valid depending on whether the local authorities will back his play, but it isn't ethically correct and proper to mess with someone else's property if you're insisting on the right to dispose of yours without interference. To be fully legitimate, I believe his terms need to meet both standards.

[thenelli01]

Basically yes... It may (or may not) be legally valid depending on whether the local authorities will back his play, but it isn't ethically correct and proper to mess with someone else's property if you're insisting on the right to dispose of yours without interference. To be fully legitimate, I believe his terms need to meet both standards.

Defining legitimate at the beginning of this discussion could have made this easier.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Devil's Advocate]

Defining legitimate at the beginning of this discussion could have made this easier.

I normally hold the OP responsible for defining terms, but I've been operating on 2, 3a & 4 of the following definition...

Definition of LEGITIMATE

1a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth <a legitimate child>

2: being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false <a legitimate grievance> <a legitimate practitioner>

3a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements <a legitimate government> b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right <a legitimate king>

4: conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards <a legitimate advertising expenditure> <a legitimate inference>

5: relating to plays acted by professional actors but not including revues, burlesque, or some forms of musical comedy <the legitimate theater>

http://www.merriam-w...nary/legitimate

Are there any relevant elements of the above definition that are at odds with Objectivist principle on this topic?