See, seatbelts are one thing where my libertarian side and my conservative side are in full agreement. My libertarian side wants them not to be mandated because it's more fodder for Big Government, and only the idiot not wearing them ends up hurt. My conservative side thinks that allowing more idiots to self-Darwinize (ideally before they can breed) is a net plus for society.

Coincidentally, I just had to vary my route because the road to the local 7/11 was blocked by emergency crews responding to an accident. No details, though.

Back in about 1982 I realized it was stupid to drive around without wearing a seatbelt, and I've resented every law enacted since then requiring their use.

Those who promote these kinds of laws usually cite the medical costs shifted to society. There are better ways to handle this than to push us further down the "nanny state" route.

"self-Darwinize"...heh

Well, maybe there should be laws.

And then, maybe, well, something kinda like, um, y'know... guidelines.

Bravo! I thought I was one of the only folks who felt this way about seat belts. I normally wear mine--but I resent the government telling me I must. Our state has a "secondary offense" law, meaning that you can't be stopped for not wearing your seat belt, but if stopped for any other violation, you may be ticketed for not wearing it. The epitome of such senseless legislation is the motorcycle helmet law. No argument can possibly be made that supports either of these items as important to PUBLIC safety. Nonetheless, there is Big Brother, holding our hand to make sure we don't hurt ourselves.

Meanwhile, Senator Bill Janklow runs a stop sign, fatally hitting a motorcyclist, and gets a slap-on-the wrist--100 days in jail (eligible for 10 hours per day public service release after the first 30), a $200 fine for speeding and running the stop sign, and 3 years probation. Incidentally, the felony manslaughter conviction will be wiped from his record if he successfully completes probation.

Just in case anyone's interested, www.stoprecklessbill.com is an ongoing effort (although not particularly active) towards ousting this bastard.

I couldn't agree more. My libertarian side really kicks in on issues like this. I can't see a reasonable public purpose served by requiring seat belt use or helmet laws. Adults can make their own decisions - foolish or not!

An intriguing post, Jay.

I've not seen statistical evidence of how seatbelt laws affect traffic fatalities, but to borrow Ian's word, people are going to self-Darwinize with OR without laws.

Still, I feel the libertarian distaste for such laws.

Yikes, I think I would be especially careful to wear a setbelt while racing. Some people just aren't very smart.

Now on to the liberals pass laws for everything comment, how did you come up with that? Who is enforcing their morality on gays?

Sarah, my earlier posting that I linked to was about seat belt laws. It was there that I spelled out just why I oppose them, and why it's usually the liberals that push for them.

As far as the gay commentary, though, I believe it was one of the icons of the left that coined the phrase that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." And another one said "Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am infinite. I contain multitudes!"

(end obligatory cheap shot)

J.

Self-Darwinization. Love it!

The argument that people not wearing seatbelts shifts costs to society and therefore we must make laws requiring people to wear seatbelts is truly scary. That very same argument could just as easily be used to justify laws against smoking (already in place in NY, CT, CA, others?), eating junk food, skiing, riding a bike, getting out of bed the morning...

When I bring up these slippery-slope issues many of my liberal friends laugh and say, "That will never happen." I tell them (always to no avail) that these things will happen, given enough time. I really hope that people come around and see the very real threats that these dumb-arse laws pose to our freedom.

Tom, I'm not really crazy about the slippery slope argument. Not really that I disagree, but that it tends to be used when a person (not you) can't find a decent argument. They just take an argument to a crazy whacked out end, then connect the dots back to the original argument, regardless of how crazy the connection itself is. Gay marriage leading to people marrying farm animals is a great example.

I would also say that I agree with all your examples except smoking. Not wearing a helmet only directly affects the person on the bike. Smoking directly affects all those people around the smoker.

As someone who grew up breathing secondhand smoke, and who also made a couple of tries at taking up cigarettes myself, I can assure everyone:

Secondhand smoke got nuthin' on that firsthand smoke.

But to get back on-topic:

Jay is right.

Not crazy about it or not, the "slippery slope argument" often recognizes the power of precedent in western jurisprudence. You know, when they cite "State vs. defending party circa [date]"?

I think a secondary seatbelt law is ok as it accomplished a significant increase in seatbelt usage with no wasting of resources other than an extra line of ink on a ticket. I could also see that if only one person is in the car a seatbelt law should be invalid. However in a wreck with more than one person in the car, a person without a seatbelt can fly into one wearing a seat belt and cause injury or death that could have been prevented.