Jay, you are so right. Excellent post.

You need to add on caveat to the argument. If a person does something to be personally destructive, they can not avail themselves to the state if their actions cause them harm. So a moron does not wear a helmet, he waives his right to free healthcare at a hospital. A smoker does not get treatment for emphysema.

The last thing I want is people who do self destructive things costing me tax money.

If people are free to make the decision to not wear a seatbelt, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, et al. then they should not be allowed to file a lawsuit against the responsible party if they get into an accident (at least as far as any injuries resulting from the lack of seatbelt or helmet.) And they should not be able to file a claim to their insurance for said trauma (or should have to pay a higher premium.) Then I would have no issue with what you propose. In fact, I would agree wholeheartedly.

How does your theory deal with drug usage and euthanasia?

excellent post!
I could not agree with you more on this one. The other comments left have some good points, too.

I agree with you too. Although something about this bothers me and I can't put my finger on it.

The flaw in this argument is kind of subtle but it's real.

Take his reasoning against jumping off a bridge, emphasis mine: "You might land on someone, and either way someone else will have to clean up your mess."

Well, that first reason is bloody unlikely---after all we're talking about a BRIDGE, and if someone is committing suicide they're generally considerate enough to actually attempt to hit the water.

It's really the second reason that weakens the argument: that someone else will have to clean up your mess.

That's just it, you see. People vastly underestimate just how much people's personal decisions affect other people's lives. Even if the suicide goes off without a hitch, and the person sinks promptly to the bottom of the body of water and stays there, it is not fully removed from affecting others. Certainly it affects those who love said person in a negative way; and it can cause them genuine grief or pain; and if that person has been financially supporting others, the effects are quite real. And if the suicide fails, then there is emergency room services to deal with. Even if we strip all the socialist features of our society, you're still left with considerable interaction between personal decisions and broader consequences.

There are really very few personal decisions that we make that don't affect other people's lives. Thus the social libertarian position really isn't "you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else"---because in fact, that rule is in fact far more restrictive than they want. What they are really saying is this: "you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in a way that I deem unduly burdensome."

And yet, as they well know, they can't make that decision for us in a truly democratic society; so in fact, it returns to the people to decide what constitutes an undue burden and what doesn't.

The one caveat I have is with the "cost to society."

I should have the _right_ to ride a motorcycle without a helmet - but the state should have the right to require me to be bonded/insured to the point that they are comfortable that my eventual meeting with the pavement won't cost anyone anything.

This applies for a wide range of activities that are potentially _personally_ destructive. Mountain climbing, (real) mountain biking, skidiving, _driving_ (which is done already).

The "It may monetarily harm society" is _NOT_ a reason to make something illegal - just an indication that you should be picking up your share of the freaking tab.

Heck, there's a nominal recognition of this in 'Sin Taxes', like gambling, smoking, alcohol, etc. Where some of the revenue goes to alleviate issues connected to the activity. (I personally think all sin tax should be 100% to alleviation + overhead.)

F**ckin* AWESOME dude!

"Freedom is the right to be responsible for one's actions."

Close, but not quite right.

Freedom comes with the duty of being responsible for one's actions.

Add another 'shouldn't be able to do if injured without a seat belt or helment' Your medical expenses should not be paid by the taxpayers nor the insurance companies unless you choose a policy that personally covers you without any of the safety equipment. I've seen too many heads through windshields, starburst on windshields, crumpled dash boards and steering wheels buckled in vehicle crashes to buy into the 'I have a right argument'. Go run with your local fire/rescue squad for a few months and get back with us.

the state should have the right to require me to be bonded/insured to the point that they are comfortable that my eventual meeting with the pavement won't cost anyone anything.

How about your smoking? How about your weight problem? How about your speeding? How about your neuroses?

Al, you've granted the state total control of your life. The whole point is that the state has no right in your decisions that affect only yourself. mcg's comment is a non-starter as your decisions affect other people no matter how you make them. Kill yourself? Affects people. Don't kill yourself? Affects people. Therefore, everything you do should be goverened by how it affects other people? Nonsense.

Make people responsible for their actions. No helmet, no ambulance.

Being a volunteer fire-fighter I too have seen too many accidents that would NOT have been fatality accidents had the driver only been wearing a FRIGGIN SEATBELT. I tend to agree a little with some of the above, that I should not (seeing as I DO wear a seatbelt) have to pay high taxes to run a trauma center for someone who CHOSE not to wear a seat belt. Likewise, why should YOU have to pay high taxes to support me because I smoke? Answer, I HAVE INSURANCE and if I get cancer or worse, I have already covered that, but how many people haven't? The problem comes in here.....

If you smoke, the state FORCES you to carry more health coverage (meddling) - but if they simply say you can smoke, and you can be un-insured, but we won't pay your medical bills if you get in trouble. That isn't FORCING me to get the higher coverage, but it's a pretty strong nudge, wouldn't you say?

mcg's comment is a non-starter as your decisions affect other people no matter how you make them. Kill yourself? Affects people. Don't kill yourself? Affects people. Therefore, everything you do should be goverened by how it affects other people? Nonsense.

Actually it sounds like we agree on that. I was making the very argument that the statement, "you should be able to do anything you want as long as it doesn't affect others," is unless.

My point was, then, that we can't use "affects other people" alone as a basis for justifying restrictions on personal license. There needs to be a higher level of "burden" established---and that level is necessarily decided democratically.

Oops, I meant "useless" not "unless" above.

-- unless what I am doing is posing a clear and present danger to others...Drive around without your seat belt? Fine.

There exist two fundamental flaws in your argument about mandatory seal-belt usage. First, drivers must do everything possible to avoid causing a vehicular accident. A driver cannot do so if he is not behind the wheel of his vehicle. Now don't laugh, because during an emergency maneuver, drivers can become removed from the driving position. Also, should a passenger not have his seat-belt on, he can end up obstructing the ability of the driver to control the car in an emergency maneuver. Second, if someone is involved in an accident (no matter what the cause), that someone cannot render aid to anyone who might need such aid due to the accident if his head bounces off something and he is unconscious because he refused to wear his seat-belt or if he and his passenger are tied up in some freakish human knot because both were exercising their right to be stupid. Driving an automobile on public highways does not entitle one to act with disregard to others. It's not just the one who refuses to wear his seat-belt who is at risk.

"Wanna smoke? Go ahead."

"Jump off a bridge? You might land on someone, and either way someone else will have to clean up your mess."

How about a little consistency here, huh Jay? It's okay to smoke and poison the air that other people breathe, but it's not okay to jump off a bridge because "someone else will have to clean up your mess?" Why do you care about other people in one case but not in the other case?

You have failed to follow Einstein's dictum: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler." The idea that "Freedom is the right to be responsible for one's actions" isn't quite correct and certainly isn't complete. You've made it too simple.

Freedom is the right to do as you please, so long as you accept responsibility for your actions and their consequences, and so long as you do not intrude on the rights of others. Why does that last part give you so much difficulty?

Compare the exhaust volume of your car to the exhaust volume of a smoker before you make that ridiculous claim about smokers poisoning everyone's air then either start walking before you make that claim again or find another argument, you know, like a valid one. My bet is that a chain smoker puts out less in a lifetime than a car does in a 300 mile trip.

There is a huge difference between saying that "seatbelt violations shouldn't be a primary offense" and advocating not wearing seatbelts. I strongly think people should make good decisions for themselves. However, I don't want those decisions to be mandatory and enforced. We went from seatbelts to airbags because some one with a patent on airbags bribed enough idiots in Washington to make them mandatory. Now watch the stupid ONSTAR commercials with the kids saying how irresponsible it would be to buy a car without ONSTAR. What a bunch of crap. How long before our "protectors" decide we need that system in all new cars.

You are absolutely right, except for one minor problem - people are not willing to take responsibility for their actions. If a person were to get in an accident without a seatbelt and get lobbed through the windshield, in this day and age, they would indubiously sue the car manufacturer for not keeping them in the cab of the car. Likewise for smoking, motorcycle riding, and all the rest of that jazz. Now, if you want to get rid of idiotic suites (like 90% of them are these days) in addition to getting rid of the Active-Darwinism-eliminating-laws, more power to you. But the latter without the former... It would get ugly :).

It was debated last week, Bullwinkle. DJ won and your side lost. Go see it at http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005739.php

Just because more than one person shares a ridiculous view of something is no reason to either believe or claim that the ridiculous view is right. Like I said, compare the smoke from a smoker to the smoke from car and if you are still stupid enough to feel that way there's very little or no hope for you to ever to develop the sense to survive without government intervention. You do need a nanny state. Doesn't mean the rest of us do....

In case facts mean anything to you a 2.5 liter engine takes in about 275 cubic feet a minute, mixes it with gasoline to cause it to expand then exhausts that expanded gas, a human breaths aroung 70 cubic feet an hour. Put that in your exhaust pipe and smoke it, while you're at it get a clue.

Bullwinkle, you are the reason no-smoking laws are getting passed right and left. DJ was right.

Stick this up your ass:

My truck has a catalytic converter and it sits in my garage most of the time. Your stupid cigarettes don't have a convertor and you light one up every ten minutes, right? The air outside is clean and clear but the air in the room where your goddam cigs are is so filthy from smoke I can see it from here.

You're dumber than hammered shit, too, so stupid you can't even understand it. Keep up this crap and you'll convince everyone.

Ok, I realize dealing with facts is tough for the mentally challenged. I'll lay it for you, I'll even type slowly so you can keep up.

I just smoked a cigarette, it took me 8 minutes. If i smoke 2 an hour for 16 hours a day 32x8/60=4.2 hours a day smoking, I don't smoke that much, but I said a chain smoker so we'll go that. 4.2 hours at 70 cubit feet per hour is 294 cubic feet per day of smoke exhaled. A car on a 300 mile trip averaging 60 mph exhausts 82,500 cubit feet.If you drive 300 miles a week you put more pollution into the air than a chain smoker does in 280 days. For every minute your truck runs it pollutes nearly 7 times more air than a smoker does in a day. That's every minute. Math is tough for guys like you, we all know that, and math combined facts is way too much. We understand. We wish you did. I really don't think that you telling me to stick things in my ass is appropriate, if you can't debate with facts and find that fiction loses every time don't get angry, get that clue I was talking about.

I was laughing so hard about a supposed adult not understanding the difference between 275 per minute vs. 294 a day that typoed a line.
For every minute your truck runs it pollutes nearly 7 times more air than a smoker does in a day. Should read more 7 times than a smoker breathes in an hour in an hour. Sorry if that confuses you too, sometimes people like you provide way more entertainment for me than I really need. All that laughing makes my poor lungs ache. That shove it up your thing really raught on the laughter, you'd never say it to me in person and it's the internationally recognized "I lost this argument" symbol, kinda like waving the white flag, how very French of you. Adieu.

Problem is this. If you don't wear your seat belt and you have an accident. If you die. That's your problem. If you live and have to be treated medically for the rest of your life, that is my problem.

OK, I'll pick your argument to pieces. That and "get a clue" seem to be all you got.

The exhaust of my truck has FAR LESS pollutants per cubic foot than your cigarette smoke does. The exhaust is clear. It's mostly CO2 and H2O (thats carbon dioxide and water, genius). It has almost no odor at all.

I can SEE your cigarette smoke and I can SEE your breath when you smoke. You don't breathe it all in and what you breathe in, you breathe out. The pullutants in it are HIGHLY concentrated. It's full of thousands of chemicals, more than 30 of which are carcinogens and more than a dozen of which, such as nicotine, benzene, and hydrogen cyanide, are very potent poisons.

So you compare volume of exhaust of the truck to volume of exhaled breath. Try comparing volumes of pollutants, masses of pollutants, concentrations of pollutants, and toxicity of pollutants. You haven't done that. Truck exhaust and tobacco smoke ain't the same.

Now for the fun part: My truck stays OUTSIDE when it runs. For every minute it runs, it spreads its exhaust down A MILE OF ROAD. On a 300 mile trip, it spreads it down 300 MILES OF ROAD. Do you know what that means? It means that the pollutants it puts out are in very LOW concentration, as in units per cubic foot. The air, even by the road, is clean and clear and smells just fine. I live right next to a state highway and the air outside is clear and clean. Your cig smoke, on the other hand, is indoors where other people breathe, ain't it? It just hangs in the air and everyone there breathes it, right? You and other smokers (how many are there in that restaurant -- 50? -- 100?) just keep adding more and more smoke to that same filthy air, don't you?

Here's your clue: The air INDOORS that is polluted by smoke is FAR, FAR FILTHIER than the air OUTDOORS that is polluted by my truck. If you smoked OUTSIDE and DOWNWIND OF EVERYTHING, nobody would complain about your smoking because they wouldn't have any reason to, just like they don't complain about my truck. But you smoke inside where other people breathe, don't you? You don't care, do you?

So, your argument is that it's OK to smoke INSIDE because it's OK to drive OUTSIDE? Yeah, that'll convince everyone.

C'mon, guy. Can you refute DJ's arguments or can't you? Is "get a clue" all you got?

I filed bill in the MASS House 20 years ago that permitted any operator of a motor vehicle to not wear seat belt or helmet, but provided that insurance benefits for injuries would be waived thereby.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, personal responsibility was (and still is) such a novel concept in MAssachusetts

Here's your clue: You don't have to ever in your life go into a restaurant or bar that allows smoking. I don't smoke in public places. I do breathe the air in the great outdoors. You pollute it. Far more than I could if I smoked as fast as I possibly can. If you want a smoke-free enviroment you have the option to spend your time and money in one, nobody ever once forced you to go into ANY restaurant or bar, surely your little mind registers that fact. I have to breathe the air out of doors. Is this getting through to you? The air you pollute out of doors is the exact same air I have to breath indoors. If pinheads like you spent more time worrying about actual rather than imagined probelms the world would be a much better place. That ain't ever gonna happen, I realize that, but reasonable people can alway hope that clueless people such as you will figure out someday that if you had a valid argument there'd be no need for you to force your whims on others, you could chose to boycott businesses that don't cater to your type people (and I use the term loosely) and spend your money in the ones that do. Instead you need a nanny state to take care of you, being unable or unwilling or a combination of both to fend for yourself. people like you are the reason they make mops buckets with a picture of an idiot slipping on a wet floor because you can't put seeing someone with a wet mop in their hands and the act of mopping together and imagine that the floor in that person's vicinty just might be wet. Far too complicated for you. Just like figuring out that the bar you just walked into allows smoking so you should look for another bar to spend your hard-earned minimum wages in. It's obvious that little gem of wisdom has never occurred to you and probably never will, and it's also obvious that you don't think the person that owns that bar has the right to decide whether or not he wants your business. One thing is certain, as long as people like you exist the theory of evolution looks very likely to be true but doesn't progress as rapidly in some families as it does in others. Even a lab rat will avoid the part of a maze that he finds offensive due to smell or any other enviromental factor that he finds disagreeable. I have a goldfish that in a few short minutes of trial and error learned that the area in the aquarium near the heater is warmer than it likes and stays out of that area. How does it feel there in the shallow end of the gene pool? I bet you use floaties.....

This does not sound like good Christian Intelligent Design to me.

The Bible has very specific things to say about how Creationism happened, and if you are going to start down the slippery slope of buying into Darwinism then you do it at your own risk. Ask yourself, where does believing in so-called Active Darwinism begin, and betraying true Conservative and Biblical Principles and becoming a Secular Liberal end?

I guess we finally get to the heart of the "minnie outrage" factor and it is Christianity and Christ.

As if it wasn't obvious about five hundred bot-posts ago.

Larry,

Not to mention the fact that the smoky air you're so afraid of in restaurants and bars that you choose to visit has never been shown to have any adverse effects, unless you count provoking righteous indignation. I do like your, "I can SEE it, so it's bad" argument. You can't see or smell carbon monoxide, so I guess it must be good for you, right?

From what I hear, the issue is not that smokers "poison the air" that others breathe, but that when a smoker (like me) who does not have current medical coverage (somewhat like me - long explanation that I will not bore you with here) gets cancer or the like, it is the tax payer that bears that burden. I think what Jay is saying is that if you want to do something that is "self destructive" you should have to acknowledge that you know the debt will only be born by you (and if they consent, your family), but NOT by the tax payers.

As to the argument above, I think most of us here ALREADY KNOW that a car will put out more dangerous exhaust gas in a 300 mile trip than a smoker could in more than 10 times the duration of that trip, but that isn't the argument here, at least as far as I see.

Just think of it as evolution in action.
(ref: Oath of Fealty, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle)