Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <1912@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jan-85 01:57:40 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.1912
Posted: Tue Jan 22 01:57:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 06:36:03 EST
Lines: 44
Nf-ID: #R:fortune:-488900:inmet:3900163:177600:2033
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jan 20 21:04:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.flame / brl-tgr!ron /  5:10 pm  Jan 19, 1985
>
>> 
>> I do believe that laws of the form "We're protecting you from yourself"
>> are unacceptable.  (If he wants to kill himself, well, that's his business.)
>> I also believe (very strongly) that laws of the form
>> "We're protecting other people from your foolishness" are desirable.
>> (This can be overdone, of course...  but we must make tradeoffs somewhere.)
>> 
>How do you feel about wearing seat belts in an airplane.  Failure to do so
>is a violation of FAA regulations and you don't even get due process.
>If you choose to argue with the Pilot over putting on your seatbelt you
>have committed a federal crime.
>
>How do you feel about mandatory smoke detector laws?
>
>-Ron
>----------

Oops!  Apples & Oranges!  In the case of an airplane, the requirement
that one wear  a safety belt is perfectly justified -- you are in
somebody else's airplane.  I don't think it should be a federal crime
to refuse to wear it, but on the other hand, I think it should
be cause for the airline to ask you never to fly with them again (and
to refuse to sell you a ticket, and to tell other airlines of your
little personality quirk).  

On the other hand, the FAA just tested some sort of expensive
explosion-retardant additive to jet fuel, found that it did not retard
the explosion, but announced that it was going to try to require
the additive ANYWAY.  Thank you government.

In a private car, or private plane, I believe it should be up
to the owner of the plane, or the captain as his agent, as a matter of 
property right.

As for smoke detectors, I suppose it depends.  In the absence of
building code requirements, inurance agencies would surely offer
discounts to building owners for having such things, assuming they were
worthwhile (my guess is that they are) -- as it is, I'm glad I've got
mine, furious that I'm *required* to have it, and I suspect that half
the ones in my building are disconnected so as to allow people to cook
without setting them off.