Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Seat belts
Message-ID: <1560029@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Apr-85 22:05:00 EST
Article-I.D.: acf4.1560029
Posted: Sun Apr 21 22:05:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 02:36:17 EST
References: <552@abnji.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 52

>/* dana@gitpyr.UUCP (Dana Eckart) /  9:38 am  Apr 19, 1985 */
>Where do we draw the line?
>
>Suppose (for the sake of arguement) that Mr. B wasn't wearing his
>seat belt when he was involved in a rather unfortunate car accident.
>Further, suppose that he wasn't killed, but just severely injured
>(although not essential to my point, possibly a quadrapalegic thus
>requiring extensive care for the remainder of his life).  
>This of course would require a great deal of medical assistance which
>generally costs lots of money.  Either Mr. B has medical and/or auto
>insurance to cover these expenses which would be reflected in higher
>rates for the rest of us (since as far as I am aware no insurance 
>company utilizes the fact of whether or not a person was wearing a 
>seat belt) or he doesn't have enough money to pay for his treatment
>and must rely on public facilities (thus costing those of us who pay
>taxes).
>
>Although this may seem heartless (and seeming to hold money in higher
>regards than health) I do it only to make a point.  It seems to me
>that not wearing seat belts is something which affects everybody!
>
>I would agree with Gail on one point however, IF there was NO affect
>on anyone else (e.g. Mr. B chooses to forego any medical treatment
>which he cannot afford, and any laws which may prevent his refusal
>are voided) then I say let him do whatever he wants (although I think
>that he could possibly benefit from their use).
>
>I hope that this point (which seems simple to me) is not too far off
>base.  Does this seem reasonable to other people?
>
>Dana Eckart
>/* ---------- */

No, his does not seem reasonable.  This was discussed recently on
net.poliics, by myself and others, but I'll repeat it here since you
brought it up.

The problem with this argument is that you assume either that coercing
A to pay B's medical bills, whether for injuries, etc. which were
accidental or caused by B's own negligence or stupidity, is acceptable,
or that since such coercion exists it can be used to justify
such seat-belt laws and the like.

What's more, the logical consequence of the argument you presented
would be enactment of many other laws restricting liberties.
For example, one could argue that individuals should be required
to focus their education on areas that would yield the greatest
benefits to the public (I agree - that's a meaningless phrase),
since the public funds such a large portion of education.


						Michael Sykora