Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!ems From: ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: Logical Conclusion (a minor point ...) Message-ID: <2440@amdahl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Dec-85 17:53:51 EST Article-I.D.: amdahl.2440 Posted: Fri Dec 27 17:53:51 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 13:18:19 EST References: <1261@cbdkc1.UUCP> <419@mhuxl.UUCP> Organization: Circle C Shellfish Ranch, Shores-of-the-Pacific, Ca Lines: 33 > **** **** > From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh > > > For those who believe in the argument that seatbelt laws infringe upon > > your freedom, don't you think that > driving on the right infringes > stopping at stop signs infringes > wearing clothes infringes > clearing sidewalks of ice and snow infringes > not appearing in public stone drunk infringes > not beating children infringes ... long list of similar activities deleted ... > > This just an example of how a stupid argument is used to defend > a stupid idea, namely that my insurance should pay for injuries that > are caused by someone not wearing protective restraining devices ... There is a basic difference here. Your list is activities which are banned or regulated for other than *financial* reasons. If you wish to change your argument to one that beltless folks are: 1) dangerous to us all. 2) Obscene 3) Antisocial 4) Violent 5) etc. Then you have cause. To base the argument on a general social cost rational is to loose freedoms. (BTW, I wear my belt. I have no problem with a seatbelt law if it is proposed for reasons other than financial. For instance, if it is held that the vehicle can only be properly controlled under adverse conditions if the driver is belted. i.e. the safety of others... Passengers? A body flying at 50mph could hurt someone!!) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.