Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!andromeda!topaz!husc6!harvard!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!duke!kpc
From: kpc@duke.UUCP (Kim P. Collins)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.cycle,net.auto
Subject: Re: Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice
Message-ID: <8214@duke.duke.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Jul-86 01:22:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: duke.8214
Posted: Sun Jul 27 01:22:18 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jul-86 01:15:31 EDT
References: <5348@sun.uucp> <6133@sri-spam.ARPA> <543@ur-tut.UUCP>
Reply-To: kpc@duke.UUCP (Kim P. Collins)
Distribution: net
Organization: Duke University, Durham NC
Lines: 36
Xref: watmath net.politics:17779 net.cycle:1861 net.auto:11926

this is a line of text
wqucjhcj
In article <543@ur-tut.UUCP> junk@ur-tut.UUCP (Jan Vandenbrande) writes:
>In article <6133@sri-spam.ARPA> robert@sri-spam.ARPA (Robert Allen) writes:
>>has saved my head and face twice.  However, I opposed the enaction of the
>>mandatory seatbelt law in California for the same reason I oppose mandatory
>>helmet laws; it's my business what I do with my body.  Note that the seatbelt
>> ....
>	Indeed it is anyones business what they do with their body.
>But who pays for a person to be patched up after an accident? The insurance.
>And who pays the insurance? Right, we all do (so I hope). And now it
>becomes my business too. If I indirectly have to pay for you to be
>scraped from the pavement and be reassembled, I'd rather have your,
>mine and everyone's elses freedom diminished a bit by requiring
>everyone to wear protective devices such as helmets, seatbelts, etc.
>The small sacrifice is worth the benefit.
>Jan.

Do you drink?  It's therefore costing ME money if you do.  And about that coffee you have every morning (for the sake of the arg.) -- your increased chances of heart disease (or whatever) will eventually end up increasing my taxes and insurance.  And any cola you drink, and any time you do anything that is dangerous to yourself but not others.  Do you eat red meat?  Shall I declare the fact that you will have a much less healthy life, statistically speaking (AND rationally speaking, since researchers can s


how how red meat hurts you) as grounds for mandatory no-red-meat law?  You and I are staring at CRTs, in all likelihood.  What do you think that's doing to our eyes?  Would you "rather have [my], [your], and everyone else's freedom diminished a bit ..."?

Etcetera.

There is a reason for my going into those examples.  I am trying to make it clear that there are two distinct kinds of cases -- those that affect others directly, and those that affect others through such things as taxes, insurance, etc.  
The latter, should you continue to think them grounds for limitations of individual liberties, are on what is called a SLIPPERY SLOPE; that is, if you hold that
one thing is impermissible, then you really can't make the case that another thing (say, red meat) is not also impermissible.

Cars themselves are dangerous!  a 10-degree turn in the steering wheel for only a second could kill you.

"For your own good" should not be a phrase heard in the lawmakers' chambers in this country.  It was heard in many other countries, with results that you and I both know well.  (I know that you didn't say that, but it is one thing that supporters of your general position would say.)

Nor should the tax/insurance rationalization be heard.
(well, _hear_ it, but DON'T MAKE LAWS FROM IT.)

Our laws are necessary to protect people FROM OTHER PEOPLE.  We are free men.

this is a line of text