Should the government protect us from ourselves?

[fatjohn]

Hello, this might be a weird question on such a libertarian minded forum but hear me out.
During the writing of an essay I came up with the following idea.

A law as using a helmet on a motorcycle is justified because

A) it decreases the chance of you getting hurt so costing less to society

B) the life of an individual is valuable to the individual and to society. So a normal individual will protect its life due to the great benefit that stems from this action (the individual can live on) and since that his/her life is also valuable to society, society gives the individual an extra incentive to protect it.

answer on A: You are the one paying whether or not via insurance. If the government intervenes due to subsidizing health care then there is validity in the claim to punish such crimes, but the government has a choice in creating this validity.

answer on both: “One is innocent until proven guilty” With that in mind, why would actions (like not using a helmet) that might give a higher probability of future crimes (like taking away your life and future accomplishments from society) then be viewed as illegal?

Any more thoughts on the B argument?

 

[BillyDkid]

Uh, no.

 

[__27__]

Why not a law against fatty foods? Why not a law against promiscuous sex? Why not a law against alcohol? Why not a law against soda pop? Why not a law against riding a motorcycle period? Why not a law against driving a car? Why not a law against smoking? Why not a law against carbohydrates? Why not a law against having a knife in your house? Why not a law against TV?

Do I need to go on? Unless we are all wrapped in our own bubble wrap cocoons from birth to natural death, life is risky. Legislating against risk holds society back, it keeps people from the wonderful reward side of risk/reward scenarios. Failure is a beautiful thing, nothing teaches you more in life than your failures. To outlaw failure is to remand society to never progressing, and likely regressing.

 

[tremendoustie]

It's very simple. No other person owns you or the fruit of your labor, and so no one has a right to forcibly prevent you from risking both, if that is your choice.

Your "contributions" are yours, not society's. "Society" does not own your life, nor are you their slave.

 

[ChaosControl]

If society provides a service such as healthcare, I can understand the reasoning behind some other restrictions, although rather than banning such, just give a tax reduction to people who are more safe and healthy. If I don't smoke, I exercise, I eat right, I wear a seatbelt and a helmet, I should not pay the same in taxes for health coverage as someone who does the opposite. Of course that is why insurance is better left outside of the government, because you do get a discount on them under such conditions, although crap like group health screws that up.

 

[Acala]

All Hail the Omnipotent State

By this theory, the government should be able to tell you what education to get, what skills to learn, and what carreer to follow, and should punish you if you don't perform up to you full capacity in any of those endeavors, because you are robbing society of getting the most benefit out of you.

 

[Original_Intent]

No. This is akin to me providing health insurance for my neighbor, and then banning him from what he could or could not do.

This is why the government should provide nothing, as they then feel that they can attach strings after the fact and enforce them by law, and use this backward reasoning that since they provide x they can proscribe y or prescribe z.

Some really good writing on these concepts at http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/principledapproachtolaw.html

 

[tremendoustie]

If society provides a service such as healthcare, I can understand the reasoning behind some other restrictions, although rather than banning such, just give a tax reduction to people who are more safe and healthy. If I don't smoke, I exercise, I eat right, I wear a seatbelt and a helmet, I should not pay the same in taxes for health coverage as someone who does the opposite. Of course that is why insurance is better left outside of the government, because you do get a discount on them under such conditions, although crap like group health screws that up.

Better yet, get the government out of the business of healthcare, and remove their excuse to control our lives.

If a business which is funded voluntarily, not by force, wishes to offer a discount, that is their choice.

 

[dannno]

Those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither.

 

[fatjohn]

Very nice I already touched upon the subjects mentioned here like further going down this line of thought goes to wearing clothes with highly reflective coefficients because they are statistically better and such. And also went to the concept of no-one owns you. But I did not find proper wording on it. Untill now... thx to certain comments here. Not in the least the one from BillyDkid.

 

[StilesBC]

No. Laws exist to prevent one individual or group of individuals from exerting force or coercion as means to deny the equal liberties of another individual.

 

[__27__]

Very nice I already touched upon the subjects mentioned here like further going down this line of thought goes to wearing clothes with highly reflective coefficients because they are statistically better and such. And also went to the concept of no-one owns you. But I did not find proper wording on it. Untill now... thx to certain comments here. Not in the least the one from BillyDkid.

http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

 

[ChaosControl]

Better yet, get the government out of the business of healthcare, and remove their excuse to control our lives.

If a business which is funded voluntarily, not by force, wishes to offer a discount, that is their choice.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I remember making the argument in class a few years ago that seat belts should be required because they reduce the workload emergency services have to deal with.

Of course, the libertarianized me knows that things like seat belts and helmets, when required by law, are just throwing a wrench into the gears of safety-product production. Same way the patents on the original steam engine kept a Cambrian explosion of innovations from reaching the market for 30 years. Regulations of this sort are keeping us from reaching a greater level of safety by sprinkling the next generation of inventors with retardation dust.

 

[Scofield]

No, the government should not be in charge of protecting you from yourself.

The only one responsible for your well being is yourself. Your choices are yours to make, and the consequences (and rewards) to follow are too your responsibility. No one has an obligation to put you on the right track and make sure you have a happy, successful life.

 

[Dunedain]

All we need them to protect is the border...but of course that is the only thing they DON'T do. Well, they protect OTHER people's borders, just not ours.

We need to be protected from government...how are they going to protect me? The government is my enemy and hates me. That they would create a law for my benefit is laughable...

 

[Dunedain]

I'm picturing some Italians entering a restaurant and saying, "Ya know, it would be a...um, REAL shame if someone were to ah...you know, bust this nice place up with a couple of baseball bats. Kinda like the ones Vinny and me are sportin'. You need protection. That's where WE come in."

No offense to any Italians out there, who are slighted by the media as mobsters.

 

[RicheyG]

No

No they should not.

They should be more worried about preserving our liberties.

Creating such laws only contribute to the remedial and nanny-like tasks which our current police forces are subjected to. In the end, decent people end up with financial burden or even jail time and harrassment by the very entity that is supposed to be preserving their liberties.

Our police are so busy being nannies to mostly harmless people that less attention is focused on the real crooks and thieves.

Don't even get me started on the
miltary. . .

 

[andrewh817]

A law as using a helmet on a motorcycle is justified because

A) it decreases the chance of you getting hurt so costing less to society

B) the life of an individual is valuable to the individual and to society. So a normal individual will protect its life due to the great benefit that stems from this action (the individual can live on) and since that his/her life is also valuable to society, society gives the individual an extra incentive to protect it.

:

Even overlooking the obvious principles in that statement, (violence should be used to control individuals) it's not actually bad for the economy to get injured..... Sure your family loses a couple thousand but that money doesn't just disappear, it goes towards hospitals, doctors, etc.... and sometimes that money will fully repair whatever was injured. So in a way it's a win-win situation (paying for the hospital bills).