Are seatbelt laws legitimate, within the context of government control

[thenelli01]

@ Matt,

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, are you suggesting that private owners of amusement parks shouldn't be able to make a seatbelt policy to ride a roller coaster?

[Devil's Advocate]

Devil, are you suggesting that private owners of amusement parks shouldn't be able to make a seatbelt policy to ride a roller coaster?

LOL, that is an interesting idea... Ultimately it gets back to private owners can do whatever they want to EXCEPT coerce the independent personal behavior of other individuals where the threat is only to themselves; no one gets to do that. The legitimate threshold of coercion is the point where the restraint of independent personal behavior secures interaction with other individuals. In that context, I could buy into the idea that seat belts prevent individuals in a collision from injuring each other. In the context of a roller coaster ride on a private road, if the property owner provides those who use his road with cars, then sure, the owner is entitled to mandate the occupants of his vehicles wear seat belts.

[Devil's Advocate]

The premise that landlords are entitled to mandate the independent personal behavior of those who happen to be on their property is statism adapted to the private sector. The foundation of a right to life isn't the land one acquires, but the physical being of the individual; corpus individuo. Any application of force used to coerce the independent personal behavior of others, where the consequences of that behavior are delimited to an individual acting on their own behalf, is illegitimate.

Put simply, a right to life isn't a mandate to live. Therefore the legitimacy of seat belt and helmet laws (regardless of their efficacy to save lives) is undermined by the same right they are tasked to secure.

[DonAthos]

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?

It might be an interesting discussion, to try to assess who drives versus who pays, and what that should mean in the context of stolen property, and why you think it ought to matter...

But that's not really the issue. The issue is whether the government has the right to set rules over use of property that it holds illegitimately. And it does not.

You keep framing individual rights as something that a property owner grants, with the property owner in this case being the government. So therefore there is no "right to drive on the streets" without permission from the property owner of the roads, the government. But the government is not the property owner of the roads. And beyond that, individual rights such as liberty are a freedom *from* governmental action/interference/coercion. Individual rights are *not* granted by any body.

What this means for driving with or without seatbelts is this: the government has no legitimate power to enforce a seatbelt law, which is a violation of liberty. Liberty means being free from governmental coercion. Coercion like seatbelt laws. This is fundamentally unlike a private owner of a private road setting the terms for use of his road, which can include seatbelts or pumpkin hats or as you like. Private rules for use of private property =/= laws. In fact the very concept of liberty hinges on understanding how and why governmental regulations and laws are unlike any other freely-entered-into arrangement between private parties.

Government's only just use of force (and every law or regulation is a use of force, unlike the terms of a private property owner) is in response to an initiation of force. But not wearing a seatbelt is not an initiation of force, and thus force in response is not warranted, and is tyrannical by nature. The case that you've made (in circumspect fashion) is that it is an initiation of force to use property against the wishes of the legitimate property owner. And that's true enough. But the government is not the legitimate property owner of the roads. The government is the devil that stole them, that built them from other people's blood (forgive me if I skew melodramatic here). It will not do, and is potentially very damaging, to pretend that therefore the government has accrued legitimate authority to further coerce people to act in the fashion it chooses, contra liberty.

[thenelli01]

LOL, that is an interesting idea... Ultimately it gets back to private owners can do whatever they want to EXCEPT coerce the independent personal behavior of other individuals where the threat is only to themselves; no one gets to do that. The legitimate threshold of coercion is the point where the restraint of independent personal behavior secures interaction with other individuals. In that context, I could buy into the idea that seat belts prevent individuals in a collision from injuring each other. In the context of a roller coaster ride on a private road, if the property owner provides those who use his road with cars, then sure, the owner is entitled to mandate the occupants of his vehicles wear seat belts.

It is the same concept. The amusement park owner is setting terms, like a contract, on how you can use his roller coaster, and the road owner is setting terms on how you can use his roads.

They aren't coercing the individual to do anything, note that is what I meant by the difference between laws and policy on private property. All he is saying is: if you want to use my property, you have to agree to this. If you don't agree with the terms, then don't use his property.

[thenelli01]

The premise that landlords are entitled to mandate the independent personal behavior of those who happen to be on their property is statism adapted to the private sector. The foundation of a right to life isn't the land one acquires, but the physical being of the individual; corpus individuo. Any application of force used to coerce the independent personal behavior of others, where the consequences of that behavior are delimited to an individual acting on their own behalf, is illegitimate.

Put simply, a right to life isn't a mandate to live. Therefore the legitimacy of seat belt and helmet laws (regardless of their efficacy to save lives) is undermined by the same right they are tasked to secure.

I agree with Nicky. This is certainly not the Objectivist opinion if the OP was looking for one.

[Devil's Advocate]

I agree with Nicky. This is certainly not the Objectivist opinion if the OP was looking for one.

Then I suppose 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," needs to be appended with, "unless that other man is either my host or my guest."

Perhaps you can point to any statement by Ayn Rand (or Objectivist philosophy), that ones right to property subsumes anothers right to life while on that property?

[Spiral Architect]

I’m failing to get the disputed point here honestly.

The Government’s only job is to protect your rights. If the government initiates force it is violating your rights instead of protecting them.

An individual can either offer something to you through free trade, which means free association. You can take it or leave it.

If you are not free to take the offer then your rights have been violated by someone. That is why we agree to form a Government in the first place – To protect us from those that would initiate force.

If you are free to accept the offer, you are free to walk away. You have a choice to either use the other person’s property on their terms or you can walk away. No rights are violated since this is not some communist hell hole where their property is yours to use and abuse as your desire. You walk away if you don’t like the terms and keep the item you would have traded.

The government doesn’t own property or set terms. It is “public property” which means everyone yet no one owns it at the same time (somehow) and the Government regulators manage it for us. Determining their right to use property is a non-issue since they neither own it nor have the moral right to take it in my name.

Government seatbelt laws = violation of rights

Private road with seatbelt requirement as part of use agreement = Your choice as part of free trade

[Devil's Advocate]

I’m failing to get the disputed point here honestly.

The issue for me is the gratuitous use of force against an individual who represents no threat (or inconvenience) to anyone but themselves, by any authority.

Government seat belt laws = clear violation of rights

Private road with seat belt requirement as part of use agreement = Your choice as part of free trade (if an alternate route of travel is available), however...

HOW does the implementation of a right to life in the form of a property right legitimize the suppression of a right to life in the form of personal reckless behavior?

HOW does a private mandate for use of a path of travel differ from a government mandate for use of a path of travel, where no alternate path of travel is available?

[Nicky]

Government seatbelt laws = violation of rights

Let's say someone who never paid taxes in his life is told that he must wear a seatbelt in order to drive down a road. Which of his rights is being violated?

[Nicky]

It might be an interesting discussion, to try to assess who drives versus who pays, and what that should mean in the context of stolen property, and why you think it ought to matter...

But that's not really the issue. The issue is whether the government has the right to set rules over use of property that it holds illegitimately. And it does not.

No, that's not the issue. If that was the issue, then the issue would've been settled the third time I repeated that no, the government does not have the right to build public roads and manage them. There wouldn't have been a need for this fourth time.

The issue is whether, just because the government taxes producers in violation of their rights, to build and manage roads, that somehow gives birth to a magical right to liberty on those roads, by which every living soul has the right to not only use that road, but use it in whatever manner they see fit.

That's the issue.

[DonAthos]

No, that's not the issue. If that was the issue, then the issue would've been settled the third time I repeated that no, the government does not have the right to build public roads and manage them. There wouldn't have been a need for this fourth time.

The issue is whether, just because the government taxes producers in violation of their rights, to build and manage roads, that somehow gives birth to a magical right to liberty on those roads, by which every living soul has the right to not only use that road, but use it in whatever manner they see fit.

That's the issue.

There's no need for a "magical right to liberty" to be born, or granted. Liberty, which is freedom from governmental coercion, already exists and is possessed by every individual. And seatbelt laws are in violation of that liberty.

You're looking for some positive grant of rights. As in, "this is the source of a person being permitted to use the roads." But that's not how liberty works. Liberty is freedom from compulsion, freedom from the initiation of force (and specifically governmental force). We are "permitted" to do all that which is not an initiation of force against some individual -- and that's the sum total of it.

I don't need to be given special clearance to use the roads. But if you disagree that I should be permitted to use the roads on my own terms, you need to identify the agency with the legitimate authority to stop me. (Hint: since we agree that "the government does not have the right to build public roads and manage them," the government is not the legitimate authority you are looking for.)

[Nicky]

HOW does the implementation of a right to life in the form of a property right legitimize the suppression of a right to life in the form of personal reckless behavior?

There is no right to personal reckless behavior on someone else's property. There is not right to personal reckless behavior anywhere, except on your own property and maybe in the woods (as long as they're not woods someone owns, of course).

And make no mistake about it, unless you built it yourself, any paved surface is someone else's property. It really shouldn't matter who's, how it came about, etc. All you need to know is that men other than yourself built it. If you know that, you know that it's not yours, and you know that you have no rights to it, on it, or in it. (well, you do have one right, that stems not from the right to property but from the right to life: you have the right to get the hell off it, in an expeditious manner).

[Nicky]

There's no need for a "magical right to liberty" to be born, or granted. Liberty, which is freedom from governmental coercion, already exists and is possessed by every individual.

By freedom from governmental coercion, Ayn Rand meant strictly freedom from the government interfering with your right to life and property. She did not mean freedom from rules on a government built road.

That paragraph isn't meant to add a new right, to liberty, to the already established rights to life and property. It is meant to explain what the right to life and property are.

When you use the word "freedom" to refer to a right you supposedly have on a government built road, and relying on that paragraph for it, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

You're looking for some positive grant of rights. As in, "this is the source of a person being permitted to use the roads." But that's not how liberty works. Liberty is freedom from compulsion, freedom from the initiation of force (and specifically governmental force).

Whoever told you that Objectivism has "negative rights" is wrong. In Objectvism, all rights are a right to action. The right to life is the source of the right to self-sustaining action, and the right to property is the only implementation of that right. In Objectivism. rights aren't defined the way you're trying to define this "right to liberty".

Let's be perfectly clear. Here is the extent of your rights: you have the right to your body (as is, living or dead) and the products of your effort. That's it.

Here's an example of something you don't have a right to: a road you didn't build. It makes no difference who built it, how many times it was stolen, etc. If you didn't build it, you don't have a right to it. There is no right to public roads, just because they're built from stolen money (well there is a right to them, but it's the right of the taxpayers who paid for it, not the right of the road users, and it's a property right - meaning that these taxpayers have the right to set conditions, not a right to liberty - meaning that everyone can do what they want on them).

Edited September 1, 2012 by Nicky

[Nicky]

The government doesn’t own property or set terms. It is “public property” which means everyone yet no one owns it at the same time (somehow)

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.

[Leonid]

Two points:

1. Public property is a contradiction in terms. Ownerships means a right to possess, use and dispose. Public is not an entity and qua public cannot have rights, only individual can. Public property, as Ayn Rand mentioned is a collectivist fiction.

2. All preventive laws are arbitrary. In the free society man can do whatever he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe the rights of others. To punish somebody for the act of the possible or probable infringement of rights which man hasn't commit yet is a terrible perversion of justice. All traffic laws should be only recommendations.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Leonid

[Spiral Architect]

The issue for me is the gratuitous use of force against an individual who represents no threat (or inconvenience) to anyone but themselves, by any authority.

Government seat belt laws = clear violation of rights

Private road with seat belt requirement as part of use agreement = Your choice as part of free trade (if an alternate route of travel is available), however...

HOW does the implementation of a right to life in the form of a property right legitimize the suppression of a right to life in the form of personal reckless behavior?

HOW does a private mandate for use of a path of travel differ from a government mandate for use of a path of travel, where no alternate path of travel is available?

A right is a right to action. Governments restrict actions, either for good (protection of rights) or ill (forcing you to act according to someone else’s whims). The issue with Government is that you have no choice since it is the monopoly holder on force. That is why it is limited to the protection rights.

Businesses set terms for their property that you can agree to or ignore. You can choose to do what you wish but you cannot force someone else to cater to your whims and run their life to your convenience. You do not have a right to force yourself on the property owner as if you earned their life’s work and force them to obey you. If you don’t like how they run their property, then you simply walk away and deal with someone who has terms you do like.

One of the greatest modern bait and switch package deals is the fact people think rights are a restriction on people, not the government.

[Craig24]

One of the greatest modern bait and switch package deals is the fact people think rights are a restriction on people, not the government.

I think this is incorrect. A right imposes a negative obligation on all men, whether they are govt agents or not. You sort of imply (not intentionally of course) that ordinary civilians may commit any crime they wish because they don't work for the state.

[thenelli01]

2. All preventive laws are arbitrary. In the free society man can do whatever he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe the rights of others. To punish somebody for the act of the possible or probable infringement of rights which man hasn't commit yet is a terrible perversion of justice. All traffic laws should be only recommendations.

If the government was not in the road business and it was completely privatized, there would be rules that would restrict the way people drive that would be agreed to in a contract. Many of the traffic laws would still be in place (or alternative rules) because they assure that lives and property are not damaged, and when they are, they help determine financial responsibility.

I think you are being a bit technical with principles, rather than being rational.

Of course the laws are illegitimate. But they are illegitimate because the foundation is wrong - government control over roads. Privatize the roads and there will still be traffic rules. Any business owner that would let a free for all on the road would not be a smart business owner (unless of course it is a specialty road, such as drag racing).

Note, I'm not saying all traffic laws are good, but I do support many of them.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Matt Giannelli

[DonAthos]

Whoever told you that Objectivism has "negative rights" is wrong. In Objectvism, all rights are a right to action. The right to life is the source of the right to self-sustaining action, and the right to property is the only implementation of that right. In Objectivism. rights aren't defined the way you're trying to define this "right to liberty".

You don't like my language when I describe "liberty" as "freedom from (governmental) compulsion"? Here again is the Rand quote you dislike so much, and please note the similarities between her language and mine (emphasis added):

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.

Now, I note that you've introduced the term "negative rights." I didn't use that term, I don't think, but okay, let's take a look at another "out of context" Rand quote to see whether it might touch on this use of language (emphasis added again):

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

When Rand says "as to his neighbors," that means "in a social context," or "as pertains to government." Liberty -- "political liberty," which is what we're talking about here -- is absolutely "negative" in that it is a freedom from governmental coercion. If you disagree that liberty is freedom from governmental coercion, then it is time that you defined what you think "liberty" means, and why you think Rand is repeatedly mistaken on this score.

And here is my continuation of the paragraph, though a portion you opted not to quote:

We are "permitted" to do all that which is not an initiation of force against some individual -- and that's the sum total of it.

Compare it with your statements here:

Let's be perfectly clear. Here is the extent of your rights: you have the right to your body (as is, living or dead) and the products of your effort. That's it.

Here's an example of something you don't have a right to: a road you didn't build. It makes no difference who built it, how many times it was stolen, etc. If you didn't build it, you don't have a right to it.

Man has no right to a woods he did not plant? Or an ocean he did not create? The Founding Fathers had no right to any public building, or use of infrastructure, after excusing the British? Inheritors of a lost civilization would have no right to the standing buildings, aqueducts? A man who finds an abandoned cabin or field would have no right to live there, no right to work that field? You find a dollar on the street, you have no right to pick it up?

"If you didn't build it, you don't have a right to it?" 100% wrong. Here it is again:

You have the "right" to do anything that does not initiate force against another individual.

That is it. That is the "extent of your rights." So if you didn't build it, but your use of it does not initiate force against another man? You absolutely have the right to use it. And your attempted elimination of "liberty" from the catalog of individual rights is wrong, wrong, wrong.

There is no right to public roads, just because they're built from stolen money (well there is a right to them, but it's the right of the taxpayers who paid for it, not the right of the road users, and it's a property right - meaning that these taxpayers have the right to set conditions, not a right to liberty - meaning that everyone can do what they want on them).

I'd asked before, and you've opted not to respond. So here it is again:

But if you disagree that I should be permitted to use the roads on my own terms, you need to identify the agency with the legitimate authority to stop me. (Hint: since we agree that "the government does not have the right to build public roads and manage them," the government is not the legitimate authority you are looking for.)

So please do so, Nicky. Identify the body or agency with the legitimate authority to stop me from using the roads on my own terms. Do you mean to say that "the taxpayers" have the right to set conditions? Tread carefully. "The taxpayers" in this case must certainly mean the government. And if you are granting to government the ability to 1) steal funds, yet 2) thereby have achieved legitimate property with "the right to set conditions"... then aren't you legitimizing the initial theft? And haven't you thus conceded to statism?

Edited September 1, 2012 by DonAthos

[Leonid]

If the government was not in the road business and it was completely privatized, there would be rules that would restrict the way people drive that would be agreed to in a contract. Many of the traffic laws would still be in place (or alternative rules) because they assure that lives and property are not damaged, and when they are, they help determine financial responsibility.

I think you are being a bit technical with principles, rather than being rational.

Of course the laws are illegitimate. But they are illegitimate because the foundation is wrong - government control over roads. Privatize the roads and there will still be traffic rules. Any business owner that would let a free for all on the road would not be a smart business owner (unless of course it is a specialty road, such as drag racing).

Note, I'm not saying all traffic laws are good, but I do support many of them.

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:

Edited September 2, 2012 by Leonid

[Devil's Advocate]

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.

Not at all; the driver is simply claiming the same right to the property of their car, that the landlord claims to the property of their real estate. The landlord doesn't own the driver's car, therefore any attempt to force the driver to wear his own seat belt is illegitimate. The landlord has only two legitimate options:

1) Deny passage to any vehicle, other than his own, on his land, or

2) Suggest that drivers of other vehicles wear seat belts; but not force them to.

[Devil's Advocate]

Businesses set terms for their property that you can agree to or ignore. You can choose to do what you wish but you cannot force someone else to cater to your whims and run their life to your convenience. You do not have a right to force yourself on the property owner as if you earned their life’s work and force them to obey you. If you don’t like how they run their property, then you simply walk away and deal with someone who has terms you do like.

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.

[DonAthos]

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.

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

You're saying that a property owner (individual, not the government) has no right to set rules for use of his private road? That his only options are to deny all access ("no trespassing") or let anyone do anything they'd like on his road? Why can't it be like this: if someone does something he doesn't like on his road, he tells them to leave?

After all, that's really at the heart of what we're talking about. It's not like the private property owner is going to jail the man who violates his seatbelt condition, or that anyone is arguing that the private property owner has that kind of authority. But can he insist that people use his property on his terms or not at all? Yes, and why not?

Consider a person's home. If you have guests over, and they start -- oh, I don't know -- making racist jokes that offend you or something, don't you have the absolute right to demand that they leave? That's not a violation of freedom of speech. You've passed no law. You're simply exercising your discretion as owner of the house. It's not as though you are therefore forbidden to have other guests over (you don't need to hang up a "No Trespassing" sign on your door, for instance), and neither must you allow just anyone who wishes to come and put their feet up on your sofa. You may be as selective as you'd like. That is what it means to have a property right in the first place -- you set the terms for how, when, and by whom that property is disposed.

Your only limits in your use of your property are the same limits that you always have: you may not initiate force against another individual. But telling someone to leave your house (or your road) is not an initiation of force; their use of your property was always contingent on your agreement, and you always had the right to say "yes" or "no."

If they understand that you want them to desist in use of your property (i.e. leave your home, your road) and they do not, then at that point they are initiating force against you. And it is appropriate at that point to call the police in response.

What part of this is objectionable, and on what grounds?

[Devil's Advocate]

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.