Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The One Minute Case Against Mandatory Seatbelt Laws


Meta Blog
 Share

Recommended Posts

Driver safety is not a special prerogative of the state


Seat belt laws are enforced “for our own good.” But traffic accidents are not leading causes of injury and death, nor is buckling seatbelts the most beneficial thing you can do for your health. Daily exercise, nutritious meals, intellectual enrichment, and regular sexual activity have all been shown to have a positive impact on mind and body. The issue is not whether seatbelts are beneficial, but whether the state has the right to coerce us for our own good.


You own yourself


The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially prohibited the ownership of another human being. To own something is to exclusively control and use it for one’s own purposes. We recognize that control is ownership, even when property nominally belongs to another party. Thus, under the regime of the National Socialist German Workers Party, industry belonged neither to the original owners, nor to the workers, but to the Nazi party, and in the Soviet Union it belonged to the Communist Party, not “the people.” Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s chief propagandist, explained it thus: “To be a socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” If the state controls every aspect of the individual’s life for the “common good,” then individuals become property of the state.


Safety regulations lead to reckless behavior


Common sense indicates that individuals are more likely to be concerned with their safety than politicians. Even when they aren’t, safety laws may have a counterproductive effect. According to studies cited by the Independence Institute,


When subjects who normally did not wear seat belts were asked to do so, they were observed to drive faster, followed more closely, and braked later.

In other words, people who are naturally cautious voluntarily choose to wear seat belts, and voluntarily drive safely
.
When reckless people are forced to wear seat belts, they “compensate” for the increased safety by driving more recklessly. Furthermore,
no jurisdiction that has passed a seat belt law has shown evidence of a reduction in road accident death.


Externalized healthcare costs are only a problem under socialism


Those who support outlawing risky behavior argue about the “social costs” of medical treatment for accidents. But this is only a problem for a socialist state. In a free society, a person is injured due to their own recklessness is responsible for their own treatment. However, in a socialist economy, everyone is responsible for paying for everyone else’s health. It’s not a coincidence that advocates of seatbelt laws are supporters of socialized healthcare as well.


“Click it or Ticket” is a step towards totalitarianism


There is no logical end to laws that replace individual judgment with politically-mandated notions of what risks we are and are not allowed to take. If it desirable to the state to control individuals while driving, eating, working, and seeing the doctor, it follows that the state should regulate every other aspect of their lives as well. Without a principled and uncompromising defense of the individual’s right to own his life, we are reduced to being property of the omnipotent State, being permitted to live only at the mercy of a bureaucrat’s decision that we contribute to the “common good.”


Further reading:




OneMinuteCase?i=qXM9r587 OneMinuteCase?i=OH6RZxQQ OneMinuteCase?i=yUlv56zM OneMinuteCase?i=ZECEPJne OneMinuteCase?i=4GDaFdkN


View the full post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...