From: utzoo!decvax!ittvax!swatt
Newsgroups: net.auto
Title: Re: seatbelts and freedom
Article-I.D.: ittvax.427
Posted: Sat Aug 21 13:13:02 1982
Received: Sun Aug 22 03:30:33 1982
References: watmath.3342

Oboy, another "never-ending flame"!

To add some (I think) intelligent thoughts to the seatbelt vs. freedom
debate:

  1)    "Getting killed has a social cost (cleaning up all that
	blood, etc.).  You're not free to stick society with the bill
	for your foolishness".

	This argument is more commonly applied to the motorcycle helmet
	debate.  Dear friends, EVERY decision any individual makes has
	some "social cost" if you want to consider it from that point
	of view.  If an individual decides to enter art as a profession
	instead of law, that person will (statistically) earn less
	money during his career and hence pay less in taxes.  This is a
	"social cost".  Does this mean we can assign professions to
	people according to some scheme of balance?  Please think about
	this carefully before you use "social cost" arguments on
	ANYTHING.

  2)	"Drivers wearing seatbelts have better control in collisions".
	Statistically this may be true, but as I asked before, what
	do the statistics tell you about a PARTICULAR accident?
	Nothing.  Unless you assume for yourself super-human wisdom
	and knowledge, you can't say in any given situation whether
	wearing seatbelts harmed or benefitted the people involved.
	Since it's the PARTICULAR accident for which an individual
	can be held responsible, it should be the particular individual
	who makes the decision.

You and I can read all the same studies and come to different
conclusions.  I don't assume you're stupid, unable to read, or
unwilling to admit mistakes; why assume other people are, just becuase
they disagree with you?  Is someone better qualified to arbitrate these
disagreements becuase they've passed a Civil Service exam? been
elected? pulished a book? appeared on the cover of Time?

However, the most important issue is NOT whether seatbelts are better
than airbags, or whether either one is better than nothing.  It is
whether a central authority can decide the question and force people to
abide by it.  Now for those who worry about "social cost" issues,
please note that EVERY law, ruling, executive order, etc., etc. has a
cost to it.  The cost is applying coercive force to those individuals
whose behavior does not conform to the law.  When you tally up how many
lives (or whatever) will be saved by some proposed legislation, please
also consider the debit side: how much will it take to enforce it?

Remember: the ONLY way to make people behave in ways they don't want to
behave is to use force (or threat of force, which is the same thing).
The amount of force required of course varies with how much the desired
behavior deviates from the actual, and how difficult it is to catch
violators.

Now there have always been people who think that if we just eliminated
X, then human society would be happy(er).  I refer to such people as
"original sin" proponents.  The basic notion is that people would be
"much better off" if only some evil (X) weren't present.  The original
favorite root of all evil in this century was alcohol.  The original
sin adherents of that time convinced (or cowered) enough people in this
country to completely ban sale of alcholic drinks.  They were going to
save "God-fearing" gentlefolk from "demon rum".

So what happened?  Did men who couldn't drink go home to their wives
and treat them nicely instead of beating them?  Did all the money
"saved" by not drinking get spent on "socially constructive" ends?
If I have to answer these questions for you, your education is sadly
lacking.

What happened is what anyone who wasn't blinded by the "original sin"
wishful thinking could have predicted: people drank anyway;  society
spent a LOT of money trying to enforce the laws; "criminals" arrived
who would supply "bootleg" liquor; law enforcement organizations were
corrupted to the extent necessary for bootleggers to operate; and the
drinkers paid MORE money for poorer quality liquor.  As a side benefit,
the "law abiding" citizen was LESS secure in his home and community
becuase of all the criminal activity made possible (necessary, I
would say) by laws against alcohol.

The so-called "noble experiment" of my parents' generation was NEITHER
"noble", NOR an experiment;  it was a worse-than-futile exercise in
wishful think on a massive scale that was doomed to failure from the
outset.  Another way to put it: it was STUPID.  Stupidity on the part
of official government comes pretty close to my notion of evil.

The current (or at least current in my day) favorite root of all evil
is drugs.  We have passed laws against them; we engage in massive
education campaigns against them in the public schools.  The
right-thinking people of our day were going to save their children (us)
from the "drug fiends".  So what has happened?

What has happened again is what anyone not blinded by wishful thinking
could have predicted: society has spent a LOT of money trying to stamp
out drug usage, including spraying marijuana fields; "dealers" and
"pushers" have appeared to supply people with "illegal" drugs; law
enforcement organizations have been corrupted to the extent necessary
for dealers to operate; and drug users are paying MORE money for poorer
quality drugs.  As a side benefit, the law-abiding citizen is LESS
secure in his home and community because of all the criminal activity
around drug use.

If this is beginning to sound like a broken record, then perhaps you'll
appreciate the similarities with prohibition.  Again, the only thing
new is history you haven't read.

The current wishful-think mafia seems to concern itself with "safty"
issues, and agitates to pass all kinds of laws to make life "safer".
For two years I lived in Austin, Texas and would waterski regularly on
in an artificial lake.  The city had passed an ordinance requiring all
skiers to wear life-preservers; the lake police would stop boats and
inspect them for compliance.  Well, in two years I never heard of anyone
drowning on that lake, but it sure seemed to me at the time that every
single week I'd hear about some swimmer or skiier being hit by a boat.
I never took a fall so hard I couldn't at least tread water, and my one
major worry was getting run over by another boat.  For this reason I
always wore my life preserver such that I could get OUT of it quickly
if I had to duck under water.  I figure my life and health was in
greater danger on that lake as a direct result of the good citizens
of Austin and their ordinance than it would have been otherwise.

The point to all this tirade is:  If people drink, take drugs, own
guns, buy pornography, smoke cigarettes, employ prostitutes, or refuse
to wear seatbelts, maybe it's because THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. And
before you advocate various laws to change that, ask youself the simple
question: how much force will it take to change their behavior, and are
you willing to pay that?  If you ARE willing, then please move to
another society whose totalitarian government is more congenial to your
outlook.

Normally I'm willing to let wishful thinkers bump into reality without
the benefit of my advice, to which they won't listen anyway.  The
problem with wishful thinkers who connive with legislatures to pass laws
favoring their attempts to change human nature is that they bump into
reality with MY NOSE.  *I* pay the cost of living in a society with so
much drug-related crime; I pay it every time I have to lock my car, or
worry about my stereo, not to mention the taxes to support the police,
courts, insurance companies, etc.

I DON'T want to pay the cost of trying to make people wear seatbelts.
Certainly not if, as the statistics indicate, they constitute a sizable
majority.  I'd much rather live in a free society.

	- Alan S. Watt