Are seatbelt laws legitimate, within the context of government control

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't think you get what rights are.

One of us may not...

A law is only legitimate when it doesn't contradict an individual's right to life, liberty, etc. Illegitimate laws justify the actions of highwaymen like Ragnar Danneskjold.

[DonAthos]

I don't think you get what rights are.

The rules are legitimate if the owner of the road says they are. If the owner of the road decides that drivers should wear a pumpkin as a hat, then that is a legitimate rule of the road that he has every right to make, and you have no right to dispute.

And yet we draw a crucial distinction between "public"/governmental ownership and private ownership, don't we? Private owners of territory (such as the business or home) can regulate speech within that territory's confines as they'd like, and you and I would defend that as their right. But if the government regulates speech, we rightly view that as censorship. ("Ownership" here being a specious distinction, as my earlier post addressed -- thievery does not confer legitimate property rights, and if the government nationalized newspapers and then censored them, that would be no less censorship.)

A private owner has every right to be stupidly discriminatory, insisting that no blacks or Irish or whatever be allowed to enter or participate in his affairs, but if the government does the same it is a violation of equal protection. And a private owner may insist that those who enter his territory wear a pumpkin hat, true, but if the government demands the same, that is an abridgement of liberty.

We cannot treat the government as we do other entities with respect to property and property rights -- as we treat private individuals with rights and legitimate property -- because the government is wholly unlike those entities, and does not have those rights or that legitimate property.

[thenelli01]

Restitution is justified in cases where ones negligence causes the death of others, but not when the injury is self inflicted. That the owner of a right of way may be sued for self inflicted injuries resulting from reckless driving, and unrelated to the owner's care and maintenance of the road, points to an illegitimate application of law, rather than objective law. Responding to one bad law by enacting another bad law, legitimizes neither; two wrongs don't make it right.

I'm missing where the "another bad law" is? Protecting yourself from a bad law with a policy (not law, as in government law) on private property is completely justified. Note the difference between a law (which you are forced to follow) and a policy (which you are not forced to follow).

By the way, when I said "negligence on your part" I was referring to the road owner and the possible liability he might hold. I am not talking about disputes between drivers.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Devil's Advocate]

A private owner has every right to be stupidly discriminatory, insisting that no blacks or Irish or whatever be allowed to enter or participate in his affairs, but if the government does the same it is a violation of equal protection. And a private owner may insist that those who enter his territory wear a pumpkin hat, true, but if the government demands the same, that is an abridgement of liberty.

A private owner doesn't have the right to abridge the equal rights of his guest; acts of murder or enslavement aren't legitimized on private property. There's also the issue of public right of ways to consider. Accessible driveways, sidewalks, paths, etc. which allow travel across private property don't entitle the Owner to require visitors to wear pumpkin hats or remove their clothes.

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm missing where the "another bad law" is? Protecting yourself from a bad law with a policy (not law, as in government law) on private property is completely justified. Note the difference between a law (which you are forced to follow) and a policy (which you are not forced to follow).

I was speaking to the issue of law, but private policies which abridge rights to life, liberty, etc. certainly aren't any more legitimate than government laws which do the same.

By the way, when I said "negligence on your part" I was referring to the road owner and the possible liability he might hold. I am not talking about disputes between drivers.

Yes, the liability of the Owner was the issue I was addressing.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Nicky]

And yet we draw a crucial distinction between "public"/governmental ownership and private ownership, don't we? Private owners of territory (such as the business or home) can regulate speech within that territory's confines as they'd like, and you and I would defend that as their right. But if the government regulates speech, we rightly view that as censorship. ("Ownership" here being a specious distinction, as my earlier post addressed -- thievery does not confer legitimate property rights, and if the government nationalized newspapers and then censored them, that would be no less censorship.)

No, that makes no sense. If the government dictates some aspects of a newspaper business (i.e. censor them, by telling them what they may or may not publish), that's a partial violation of their property rights. If the government nationalizes that same newspaper, that's a total violation of the same rights.

Saying that, after the total violation, the government could still partially violate those same rights, is nonsense. After the nationalization, there's nothing left to censor, so you couldn't say that the government is censoring its own property.

As for "freedom of speech" in general, free speech rights are a consequence of property rights. To argue for free speech anywhere except on one's own property is to argue for a floating abstraction: a "free speech" right that's not the logical consequence of property rights.

To argue for any right to action outside the context of one's own property, is to argue for a floating abstraction. There is no such right as "speaking freely / driving without a seatbelt while on [insert any place except one's own property, or a property who's owner consented to your actions]".

A private owner has every right to be stupidly discriminatory, insisting that no blacks or Irish or whatever be allowed to enter or participate in his affairs, but if the government does the same it is a violation of equal protection. And a private owner may insist that those who enter his territory wear a pumpkin hat, true, but if the government demands the same, that is an abridgement of liberty.

Define liberty (either in terms Ayn Rand already defined, or in terms of reality).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including the applications which force the government to use its property in a speech/race/sexual orientation etc. neutral manner. But that's because they're a sensible limit on government power.

To the extent these amendments dictate how government should use its property, they are not applications of individual rights. There is no such right as "access to government property".

And preventing the government from setting life saving rules on its roads would not be a sensible limit on government power.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Nicky

[FeatherFall]

JASKN, I think that most people drive passively and most people advocate traffic laws, but I think that is a coincidence. I drive "actively" most of the time. I do sometimes catch myself driving passively, but that is a rare occasion.

[Devil's Advocate]

Legitimacy isn't conferred by the sanction of the victim, as perhaps is being promoted by some here. There's only one measure of legitimacy for law (or policy); respect for the life and liberty of every participant.

[Nicky]

A private owner doesn't have the right to abridge the equal rights of his guest;

I'm quite confident that the OP is interested in an answer from an Objectivist perspective. So that's definitely the wrong answer.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Nicky

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm quite confident that the OP is interested in an answer from an Objectivist perspective. So that's definitely the wrong answer.

Then as a spokesperson for the OP and Objectivism, is the correct answer that property owners have a greater right to life and liberty than those without property?

[thenelli01]

Yes, the liability of the Owner was the issue I was addressing.

Well I'm not too sure what you are talking about then. You brought up right of way and then say unrelated to maintenance of the road but that is precisely what I am talking about.

[Devil's Advocate]

Well I'm not too sure what you are talking about then. You brought up right of way and then say unrelated to maintenance of the road but that is precisely what I am talking about.

How does responding to the possibility of being sued for injury, resulting from personal reckless behavior on your property, with "a policy (which you are not forced to follow)" protect anyone? Why assume responsibility for the reckless behavior of others in the first place?

[Nicky]

Then as a spokesperson for the OP and Objectivism, is the correct answer that property owners have a greater right to life and liberty than those without property?

Objectivist rights don't conflict, so the question is nonsensical. The right to life doesn't entitle you to someone else's property.

A property owner can't kill you, but he can ban you from his property. For any reason he feels like.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Nicky

[Devil's Advocate]

Objectivist rights don't conflict, so the question is nonsensical.

Then we can agree that life and liberty are equal rights whether or not you're an Objectivist.

The right to life doesn't entitle you to someone else's property.

I haven't proposed otherwise, so I'm not sure where this nonsense comes from...

A property owner can't kill you, but he can ban you from his property. For any reason he feels like.

Yes, trespassers may be prosecuted, however this fails to address the legitimacy of effecting the personal behavior of those who travel across property (private or otherwise) where the path is recognized as a public right of way.

[thenelli01]

How does responding to the possibility of being sued for injury, resulting from personal reckless behavior on your property, with "a policy (which you are not forced to follow)" protect anyone? Why assume responsibility for the reckless behavior of others in the first place?

I am not talking about the reckless behavior of others. What I am talking about is death due to negligence by the road owner or not keeping up with maintenance of the roads. I am saying that the seat belt laws can help save lives, which is beneficial to the road owner in case they are held financially liable for the incident. Thus is good business practice.

I'll draw a parallel to give you a better understanding. An employee drops a bottle of soda at a grocery store but doesn't clean it up and doesn't put a sign up. Customer trips, breaks an ankle and sues.

It is in the best interest of the road owner to have a seat belt mandate because less risk financially and people are safer.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[DonAthos]

Define liberty (either in terms Ayn Rand already defined, or in terms of reality).

From “Conservatism: An Obituary,” per the Ayn Rand Lexicon:

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.

I believe that the primary mistake you and others are making here is in treating the government like "just another landlord," in saying that it's free to make the rules as it chooses on "its property."

The government is not just another landlord. Its character as "government" -- as the quote I've provided should attest -- marks the very difference between legitimate applications of property rights and that which is not, which means an abrogation of liberty. And what is more, the government has no legitimate claim whatever to the roads; the roads are not the "property" of the government -- they are stolen goods.

The government holds the roads by force, and you are arguing that therefore the government has further "legitimate" coercive power to make whatever rules it chooses for those roads. It does not.

No, that makes no sense. If the government dictates some aspects of a newspaper business (i.e. censor them, by telling them what they may or may not publish), that's a partial violation of their property rights. If the government nationalizes that same newspaper, that's a total violation of the same rights.

Saying that, after the total violation, the government could still partially violate those same rights, is nonsense. After the nationalization, there's nothing left to censor, so you couldn't say that the government is censoring its own property.

Ergo, in a communist country which owns the press, there is not -- and cannot be -- any censorship of the press...?

As for "freedom of speech" in general, free speech rights are a consequence of property rights. To argue for free speech anywhere except on one's own property is to argue for a floating abstraction: a "free speech" right that's not the logical consequence of property rights.

To argue for any right to action outside the context of one's own property, is to argue for a floating abstraction. There is no such right as "speaking freely / driving without a seatbelt while on [insert any place except one's own property, or a property who's owner consented to your actions]".

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, including the applications which force the government to use its property in a speech/race/sexual orientation etc. neutral manner. But that's because they're a sensible limit on government power.

To the extent these amendments dictate how government should use its property, they are not applications of individual rights.

Forgive me, but do you mean to say that "equal protection before the law" and "freedom of speech" and assembly and so forth are not matters of fundamental individual liberty, but are merely "sensible limits" on government power? That, therefore, a law forbidding Latinos, say, from travel on the roads or access to civil buildings would not be a violation of their individual rights, but merely "senseless" policy? Because the government has the "legitimate" property right to determine who travels "its roads" or steps foot into "its buildings"?

Edited August 30, 2012 by DonAthos

[Devil's Advocate]

I am not talking about the reckless behavior of others. What I am talking about is death due to negligence by the road owner or not keeping up with maintenance of the roads. I am saying that the seat belt laws can help save lives, which is beneficial to the road owner in case they are held financially liable for the incident. Thus is good business practice.

I'll draw a parallel to give you a better understanding. An employee drops a bottle of soda at a grocery store but doesn't clean it up and doesn't put a sign up. Customer trips, breaks an ankle and sues.

It is in the best interest of the road owner to have a seat belt mandate because less risk financially and people are safer.

OK, so in the case of a private road owner, you believe that having a non-mandatory seat belt policy will increase the likelihood of surviving accidents that result from negligent road conditions...

1) If seat belts save lives, then they must be worn to do so; suggesting that they be worn doesn't cut it.

2) If I am persuaded to follow your policy and become trapped in my car in a fiery wreck because the belt won't release, or it keeps me trapped in a sinking car that fell into your lake because your bridge collapsed due to your negligence, would you then reconsider your policy?

[thenelli01]

OK, so in the case of a private road owner, you believe that having a non-mandatory seat belt policy will increase the likelihood of surviving accidents that result from negligent road conditions...

1) If seat belts save lives, then they must be worn to do so; suggesting that they be worn doesn't cut it.

2) If I am persuaded to follow your policy and become trapped in my car in a fiery wreck because the belt won't release, or it keeps me trapped in a sinking car that fell into your lake because your bridge collapsed due to your negligence, would you then reconsider your policy?

What part of "seat belt mandate" is non mandatory? I am in favor of the road owner issuing penalties for seatbeltless drivers so that the number of seatbelt users increases.

2) No.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm missing where the "another bad law" is? Protecting yourself from a bad law with a policy (not law, as in government law) on private property is completely justified. Note the difference between a law (which you are forced to follow) and a policy (which you are not forced to follow).

I guess I'm missing what part of "which you are forced to follow" equates to a mandate...

[Nicky]

Ergo, in a communist country which owns the press, there is not -- and cannot be -- any censorship of the press...?

Yes, saying that a communist government is censoring its own newspaper is nonsensical.

Freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity. It means freedom from the coercive power of the state—and nothing else.

Out of context quote is out of context. That's not a description of a "right" one has on government property.

And what is more, the government has no legitimate claim whatever to the roads; the roads are not the "property" of the government -- they are stolen goods.

No one's saying that the government has a legitimate claim to the roads. In fact I pointed out that it doesn't in my very first post in the thread.

What I am saying is that you don't have a legitimate claim to them. And, with this equivocation on the word "freedom/liberty", that's exactly what you are driving at: that you somehow have the same exact rights being a rightful property owner would grant you, to all the property the government has ever stolen from anyone.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Nicky

[Nicky]

That, therefore, a law forbidding Latinos, say, from travel on the roads or access to civil buildings would not be a violation of their individual rights

That's exactly what I am saying. Let's say I steal your road. Does that mean that every single person in the country has the individual right, bestowed upon them by the magical right to liberty, to use that road from this point on?

Because that's exactly what you're arguing for, on a wider scale. You are saying that, just because the government stole the money to build the roads from taxpayers (a minority even among Americans), that this somehow grants every living person on the planet the right to use that road.

I am pointing out that there is no such right. While it is a very good idea to no allow the government to use its stolen property in a discriminatory way, that requirement is not an application of individual rights. Individuals rights are a useless concept, when dealing with stolen property.

[DonAthos]

Let's say I steal your road. Does that mean that every single person in the country has the individual right, bestowed upon them by the magical right to liberty, to use that road from this point on?

Well, let's start here:

Let's say you steal my road. That means that you have no legitimate authority to stop me or anyone else from using that road. Because it is not yours.

Yes, saying that a communist government is censoring its own newspaper is nonsensical.

...so...

...if we accept the idea that a communist nation by its nature will lay claim to owning the media, there can be no censorship of the media in a communist nation. This is... quite the work of logic on your part.

Out of context quote is out of context. That's not a description of a "right" one has on government property.

Out of context? You'd asked me to define liberty with reference to Rand or reality. I provided a full quote defining freedom (in a political context; i.e. "liberty") from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, with no edits or alterations. Do you not remember asking me to do that? Did I not do exactly what you asked, and furthermore cite my source? Seriously, dude. What is your deal?

What I am saying is that you don't have a legitimate claim to them. And, with this equivocation on the word "freedom/liberty", that's exactly what you are driving at: that you somehow have the same exact rights being a rightful property owner would grant you, to all the property the government has ever stolen from anyone.

In the first place, I'm not certain you're using the word "equivocation" correctly.

In the second, rights -- as in individual human rights -- are not something "granted" to you, either by "rightful property owners" or by the government. And politically (as the "out of context" Rand quote mentions), liberty has to do with freedom from governmental coercion. It isn't a property owner's place to give you freedom from governmental coercion, or take it away from you. They are not so empowered.

The only thing that can take such a freedom away from you in any real sense is: governmental coercion, wherein the government initiates force against you.

Laying claim to the streets is an example of governmental coercion, and every subsequent act of illegitimate control, including requiring seatbelts, is a further example of governmental coercion.

Your essential argument that once the government has abrogated property rights, there is no further abrogation of rights in censorship (or that censorship cannot in fact exist) or in whatever other coercive or discriminatory law, is akin to saying that once I've punched you, it doesn't matter if I punch you a hundred more times -- that it is all the same, and somehow punches 2-100 are "legitimized" by virtue of the fact that I've already launched my assault. But claiming the roads is a coercive act, and a violation of individual rights, and a seatbelt law is a further coercive act and a further violation of rights. Just as it is a violation when a slave owner claims ownership of another human being, and a *further* violation when he whips his slave, or rapes his slave, or kills his slave. Whipping and raping and killing don't cease to be violations simply because the slave master initially claims ownership; they don't become "legitimate" acts based on property rights. A human being cannot be property -- a slave master has no property rights over his slave. And neither does the government have property rights over that which it does not rightfully own, and yes, in the name of liberty the government cannot rightly restrict me from acting as I please so long as I do not initiate force against another man.

That's exactly what I am saying.

Wow.

All right, I thought my example was sufficiently extreme, but obviously I didn't carry things far enough.

Suppose Hitler had claimed ownership over the entirety of Germany, including enslaving every last man, woman, and child. Therefore, the Holocaust becomes a "legitimate" exercise of property rights (though I'm sure you would say "not sensible policy") and not a violation of anybody's individual rights. Right?

[Nicky]

Laying claim to the streets is an example of governmental coercion

Yes it is. All you need to figure out now is who the victims of that coercion are: the people who pay for the streets, or the people who drive on them?

Edited August 31, 2012 by Nicky

[Devil's Advocate]

@ Matt,

I guess I'm missing what part of "which you are forced to follow" equates to a mandate...

Grabbed the wrong snippet - what I meant to say was, I guess I'm missing what part of "which you are not forced to follow" equates to a mandate, as per your description of a policy. A private policy of issuing penalties for driving without a seat belt appears the same as a public law which issues penalties for doing the same. In either case, beltless drivers pose no threat to anyone else, so coercing them to buckle up isn't justified as a legitimate use of force.

[Devil's Advocate]

I am pointing out that there is no such right. While it is a very good idea to no allow the government to use its stolen property in a discriminatory way, that requirement is not an application of individual rights. Individuals rights are a useless concept, when dealing with stolen property.

Individuals rights are a useless concept, when dealing with stolen property?!