It took less than 24 hours for the newspapers to begin calling for Pennsylvania's mandatory helmet law to be reinstated following Ben Roethlisberger's accident yesterday. But folks, Roethlisberger is a big boy. His life belongs to him, not to any of us, and he made a choice. A bad choice, certainly. A horrible choice. But guess what? He is now paying the consequences for that choice. Just like people who choose to bungee jump, smoke cigarettes, snowboard, race cars, eat too much pizza, or play with firecrackers pay the consequences for their choices all the time. We don't need government punishment on top of those natural consequences. The government's job is to protect us from others, not from ourselves.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Yes, yes, I know - Godwin's law and all that. But the term is so perfect that I choose to use it, even while recognizing that the analogy is obviously absurd. I refer, of course, to the full range of health and longevity fetishists who push for ever more intrusive regulation of what we eat, drink…
Timothy has a post addressed to me, in reply to my post yesterday. He makes two arguments. First, he argues that the crimes of communist thugs were often understated and the crimes of anti-communist thugs often overstated. No argument from me on that one. I absolutely agree, and for the record I am…
As regular readers know, my friend Paul is a journalist based in the Middle East, and spent a year working as a reporter in Baghdad. He finished that a little while ago, but he's back, and has sent another of his intermittent dispatches.
I've been posting these to the blog when I get them. This one…
A week ago, one of our former foster sons celebrated his ninth birthday. He's now living with family in another state, and we have kept in regular touch. We sent a gift, a card with some pictures we thought he'd enjoy, and on the afternoon of his birthday, we tried to call and wish him happy, but…
If I were an insurance agent, I'd probably refuse to insure anyone who rode a motorcycle without a helmet. Problem is, insurance agents can't know that ahead of time. How about adding a clause to insurance policies saying that the policy will not pay in the event that the biker is killed or injured while not wearing a helmet? It might also be necessary to pass a law absolving other drivers of some liability if they hit a biker who isn't wearing a helmet. That would a) encourage helmets without requiring a law that forces bikers to wear them, b) allow riders to forego helmets if they are willing to pay the consequences, and c) eliminate the possibility that other drivers will subsidize the ones who don't wear helmets through higher insurance premiums across the board.
There is one decent argument for helmet laws (aside from the fact that such laws aren't really that horrible in the general scheme of things): a motorcycle rider, not wearing a helmet with a visor, might get hit on the head and stunned by debris or impact with another vehicle, or blinded by dirt or dust; and this might cause him to lose control of his bike and thus become a danger to others as well as himself. By offering at least some protection against such events, a helmet enhances the safety of others, not just the wearer.
Whether the folks in PA are using this argument is another matter...
Two words: Fookin'. Dumb. Ass.
Oops, sorry. That was three words.
Seriously, when he recovers sufficiently to attend his first post-wreck news conference, I hope the first question is: "Ben, would you ever, in your wildest dreams, even consider playing in an NFL game without a football helmet?"
Ed, here's the thing: Ben can and will pay for all his medical bills; but when 99% of the people who ride helmetless get hurt, and sustain injuries that would have not have had otherwise, we end up paying for it; through higher insurance rates or taxes.
Here's an idea I read somewhere that I can support: Riding helmetless is considered an irreversable consent to be an organ donor.
Nick P wrote:
All perfectly fine by me. If any insurance companies aren't using such language, they're being as stupid as Ben was.
ma3rk wrote:
And the problem with this argument, as I have pointed out about 14 billion times, is that it applies just as well to practically any human action. I bet you can think of as many cases as I can where a human choice indirectly drives up someone's cost of doing something, particularly when it comes to our health - eating a high fat diet, eating a high carb diet (depending on which nutritional theory you buy into), riding 4 wheelers, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, bungee jumping, driving race cars...one could, quite literally, go on all day. If that cost justifies requiring someone to change their habits in terms of wearing a motorcycle helmet, why doesn't it justify banning every single thing a person can do that might cause them ill health?
Dan wrote:
Perfectly reasonable question. You won't catch me on a motorcycle under any circumstances, forget about "without a helmet." I think 4 wheels is the bare minimum. But that's my choice; he made his. He's laying in a hospital bed right now with a 9 inch gash in the back of his head and a broken jaw. I suspect he's figured out that he made a bad choice.
ma3rk wrote: 99% of the people who ride helmetless get hurt ... and sustain injuries that would have not have had otherwise, [leaving the public to] end up paying for it; through higher insurance rates or taxes.
I call bullshit. Your 99% figure is pulled from you A**. Moreover the implication that helmets are a magical suit of armor for riders ignores the fact that people also have arms, legs, abdomens filled with soft organs and snappable necks.
Sure, motorcyclists are safer wearing helmets. They'd be even safer if they didn't ride motorcycles at all. They'd be safest if they wore helmets while driving Volvos at low rates of speed. Can't we just except that people have the desire and general right to make their own life choices.
Ed,
Just wondering if you feel the same way about seatbelt laws - that state's shouldn't have those either. They seem motivated by about the same basic reasoning as helmet laws.
What about safety standards for cars - which is to say, whether or not a car is "Street legal."
I think a fair argument could be made that a wearing a helmet is part of "safely operating" a motorcycle, just like wearing a seatbelt or not driving an unsafe or dangerous vehicle on the road.
I generally agree with you that laws legislating against personal stupidity are, well, stupid. And to be honest I don't know which side of this helmet law thing I'm on. I'm just trying to think of the logical extensions - and it seems to me that seat belt laws and helmet laws are pretty much the exact same thing.
What about laws where people aren't allowed to talk on their cell phones and drive? Do you think those are inappropriate? A little different because the argument is that the person is distracted if they're on the phone, but it seems to me it's in the same ballpark as a helmet law.
I imagine you think all these laws are stupid, and that's fine, I'm just wondering if that's indeed where you stand.
Rick Dakan wrote:
Yes, I feel the same way about mandatory seat belt laws. I wear my seat belt all the time because, like Ben, I stupidly didn't do so and got into an accident about 15 years ago and was lucky to survive it. And seat belt use was mandatory at the time. The fact that I make a good choice in that area doesn't mean I want the government to force me or others to do so.
The basis of such laws is a bit different, it's more akin to laws against drunk driving - they exist to protect others, while a seat belt law only protects you. I don't know how serious the risk is, however, and that would be the key to deciding whether I think the law is worth having or not. I've not read any material on the question of whether talking on a cell phone really does make a measurable increase in risk of hitting someone else in a car. But it's certainly plausible, and it's an entirely different situation than seat belt laws or helmet laws.
As far as I am concerned, arguments against helmet laws fail for several reasons, all practical. First, driving is a privilege, not a right; thus the state can set standards and requirements for driving. The only right associated with driving is the right to equal access to the privilege. Second, despite any philosophical beliefs to the contrary, the government has decided that you do not have the right to injure or kill yourself. It's all well and good to have libertarian beliefs, but this government is not now and has never been libertarian. Libertarian arguments may be fun and educational, but they have little practical relevance to the government of this country. I personally think idiots who ride motorcycles without helmets have already demonstrated that they do not meet the minimum requirements for a motorcycle endorsement on their driver license.
And the problem with this argument, as I have pointed out about 14 billion times, is that it applies just as well to practically any human action. I bet you can think of as many cases as I can where a human choice indirectly drives up someone's cost of doing something, particularly when it comes to our health - eating a high fat diet, eating a high carb diet (depending on which nutritional theory you buy into), riding 4 wheelers, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, bungee jumping, driving race cars
This is where my libertarian tendencies end - of course Ed is right, but there is an inherent cost/benefit ratio that any society must go through before deciding where to draw the line at personal freedom. Motorcycles, in general, use less fuel and less road space than cars, that is a benefit to society overall (a public good, as it were); the cost of these devices is their higher injury rates - and more serious injuries - when involved in crashes, and society certainly does pay most of the costs of those serious injuries. When a motorcycle rider has no health insurance, or becomes permanently disabled from a crash (whether they have private health insurance or not), society (in the form of the Medicaid and Medicare programs, the latter program covers nearly all permanently disabled people in this country) pays that cost, not to mention the loss of productivity in the economy.
The distinction I make between something like helmet or seatbelt laws and eating fatty foods is this - fatty foods do not kill you instantaneously. Eating a small amount of high fat food does not lead to illness, and even if one is eating a high-fat diet, there are plenty of warning signs (expanding waistline, increasing cholesterol levels, high blood pressure) before any permanent damage is done, and therefore time to change one's behavior. The risk of permanent damage, particularly to a young and productive worker, is relatively low.
A car or cycle accident, on the other hand, happens in the blink of an eye, with no chance to put the seatbelt on or get a helmet in place, so it is appropriate for society to determine that risk is too high.
Now, just when the real libertarians are sharpening their claws, I also have long supported a compromise position that I think makes sense. You give people the option of not wearing seatbelts or helmets (for adults only, that is) with the caveat that they must then have a private, long-term care insurance policy to earn the privilege of taking that risk (thus, society's cost is much reduced). Failure to either use the safety device or have the policy would mean significant penalties - high fines and/or loss of driving privileges.
CPT_Doom wrote:
I have no problem with this. I have no problem even saying that if someone gets injured doing something stupid, they aren't eligible for medicaid, medicare, SSI, SSD or whatever other programs there are to pass the cost on (whether we should have such programs at all is a separate question). I actually mean it when I say that the individual should pay the full consequences of their actions. That's the flip side of the argument for personal choice - personal responsibility. I doubt anyone could get insured for wearing a motorcycle without a helmet, and if they can the cost is going to be enormous. But at least then the cost is borne privately, not by others.
Ed - whilst I agree with the bigger sentiment, my Girlfriend is an ER doc and deals with these helmetless wonders after natural selection comes a knocking. Sadly, they don't always die quickly and inexpensively. in a world of finite rescources, wouldn't it be good if they didn't show up at all?
Rich wrote:
And the very same argument can be made for virtually every self-induced health problem imaginable. Ask a cardiologist who deals with vegetable-less wonders having quadruple bypass surgeries. They don't die quickly and inexpensively. In a world of finite resources, wouldn't it be good if they didn't show up at all? Voila, we have just justified virtually any governmental mandate one can entertain - banning fast food, mandatory visits with government dieticians to certify that everyone is eating a healthy diet, even mandatory blood testing to insure that no one is getting too much fat or salt in their diet, or mandatory calisthenics and exercise for everyone.
The fact is that virtually all of us make choices that are unhealthy, and we have the right to do so. Do we really want to live in a world where the government can force us to do otherwise? This is a recipe for becoming an even more over-regulated society and prescribing more and more punishments for personal choices.
I predicted something similar yesterday, when I first heard about the accident. Why stop with motorcycle helmets? You never know when a helmeted motorcyclist will veer out of the street and strike a pedestrian. Their helmet will crack your noggin--that is, unless you're helmeted, too. Helmets for all!
I posted before I saw your ' I say that the individual should pay the full consequences of their actions.' - of course, if they are poor, that means you just let them die, slowly.
Ed's libertarian arguments all fail for the reason Mark Paris stated above. Driving is a privilege that is licensed by the state. It is not a right. The same goes for the licensed privilege of serving food to paying customers.
The state, through its elected representatives has the right to regulate the drivers, the conditions and the types of vehicles allowed on public roads as well as the type and way that food will be served to customers.
If people don't like the way the state performs that regulating process - they can run for office on a platform to change those regulations and make them more lenient. Or, they can support someone else to do that.
In the meantime, they should accept such rules as a small price to pay for living in a place with freeways and cops to patrol them - and where the chance of getting poisoned in a restaraunt are pretty low. Ours is a relatively safe place to drive and eat compared to most others in the world.
There seem to be many other places where one could more nobly draw lines of personal freedom - places where government regulations are used as an excuse to opress others.
And Ed, if I told you once, I told you 14 billion times, don't exaggerate.
"I say that the individual should pay the full consequences of their actions.' - of course, if they are poor, that means you just let them die, slowly."
And there's the fatal flaw in that argument. Society will not stand by and let those people die, no matter how stupid their actions.
Nobody's mentioned the collateral damage occurring from the death or serious injury of a helmetless rider. First, if another driver was involved, whether or not they caused the accident, to be involved in someone's death as opposed to just an injury can have much more severe and lasting consequences ("it wasn't your fault" won't often cut it).
And then there are the relatives and friends of the rider. Much of the burden of his death or serious injury will fall upon them--maybe a lifetime's worth. It can be argued that by enforcing helmet laws, the state is protecting much more than the motorcyclist from injury and suffering.
pelican's point wrote:
Please explain to us the precise difference between a right and privilege in this context. How does one determine it? It surely can't be whether it requires a license or not, since we require licenses for lots of other rights (marriage, for example). So how exactly do we determine whether a given activity is a right and not a privilege, or vice versa.
States don't have rights, states have authorities. And of course they have the legitimate authority to regulate some aspects of such activities, but not any aspect they choose to regulate. Of course they have the authority to prohibit drunk driving, or driving cars with no brakes, because those things protect other people from our choices. Seat belt laws and helmet laws only protect us from our choices. Those are entirely different rationales for a law, one legitimate and one illegitimate.
Or they can make an argument, just like I'm doing here.
Or to oppress us, as in this case.
tacitus wrote:
And once more, this is an argument that would defend any intrusion. Society won't let people who overeat die no matter how stupid their actions - therefore, what? Therefore the government is justified in conductings raids on our homes to search the fridge and remove anything that might be bad for us? Therefore the government can force all fast food restaurants out of business or throw people in jail for going to them? Therefore the government can require forced exercise for all citizens? There is no intrusion that your argument does not justify just as well as the one you're arguing for.
And again, what law does this not justify? Think about the relatives of people who have bypass surgeries, or who end up in ICU after going skydiving or snowboarding. Does that justify the state banning those activities?
No kidding! You only have to get your hair caught in the chain once to make you use a helmet!
This is a good thread and is making me think about my current views.
It seems that there is a continuum for dangerousness from 'breathing' to 'suicide.' At some point there would seem to be an 'of sound mind' factor? Should everything go? For everyone?
These topics are hard when you're not drunk!
pelican, you act like the state is an external agent. As a taxpayer, you are part of the state. So the highways are partially users. As much yours as anyone elses. So making pointless regulations does violate ones' liberty. As much as it would be to say that a person can not wear blue while driving. There's just absolutely no reason to babysit adults. At worst I would be for money spent to educate people on how stupid it is to drive a motorcycle without a helmet. From there they can make an informed choice; right or wrong.
As for the insurance plan, I'm pretty sure that would be unenforcable. If the compromise is that helmet/seatbelt laws are revoked and then there is high penalties for not using them if you are on a general insurance plan, it wouldn't be possible to know if people are wearing them. Because they wouldn't be checking. They barely are now.
I'd have to see real data that shows exactly how much it costs individuals before I was willing to go along with laws that in reality seem to only affect one person. And this is coming from a person who had one of his best friends die a few years ago because he got thrown from his truck because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.
Ed, in practical terms, anything for which the government requires a license is a privilege, not a right. The right you have is equal access to the privilege, as I said earlier.
The libertarian argument is dead in the US. (I know, the argument is not dead; it is simply the practical application of the philosophy to American government that is dead. In fact, it has never been alive here or any other place where there is a government.) I think a libertarian would argue that a businessman has the right to provide or not provide his services to anyone for any reason. That obviously is not true in the US. A libertarian would argue, would he not, that a businessman has the right to offer any service or goods that do not harm anyone. That obviously is not true in the US. I don't have to count the nails that seal the coffin; anyone can do that. You can certainly argue and fight for the rights you believe in, but prepare for a aching head.
Mark Paris wrote:
That simply isn't true. You have to have a license to get married, but the courts still recognize the right to get married as a fundamental right. And equal access is not necessarily guaranteed even if something is a right.
If all this means is that there will never be a purely libertarian government, of course I agree. Does that mean, then, that we should all roll over for full-blown authoritarianism instead? Of course not. We should try and hold the line against unjustified government coercion and preserve freedom as much as we possibly can. Here, as always, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
If it falls within an activity where there is an inherent danger to others, then the states (those others) have the authority to regulate those activities to reduce the risk and dangers that they are exposed to. That includes physical and health danger as well as the danger of undue tax liability. I suspect this emanates from the constitutional duty to provide for the general wellfare - as ultimately interpeted by the USSC.
I'm no lawyer but I don't know of any specific limitations of the kinds of regulations that government can enact within those broad areas except . . .
Occasionally, a state or municipality, will enact a law that does limit somone's personal freedom. Those are eventually challenged and removed. Like the signs on city busses in Dallas, TX when I grew up, commanding "negroes" to sit in the seats toward the rear of the bus.
Rationales are not legal principles. The principle is that states have the authority to regulate driving of vehicles on public roads and serving food to paying customers among other activities. States rightly see that as creating a body of regulations and laws to back them up that are consistent and enforceable. The balancing of rights and responsibilities within those areas is justifiably left to the states and the electoral process to resolve.
Yes, and I can point out the silliness of that argument, as I'm doing here. There's a lot of oppression going on in the world. Women and girls are forced to have abortions because they can't get a pharmacist to sell them the morning after pill. Dark skinned people are being imprisoned at up to ten times the rate of whites for illicit drug use. Thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq are being slaughtered because some idiot born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a connected Daddy decided to become a "war president" now that he's grown up.
Rich white guys yelling "oppression" because they have to wear a helemt when they ride their motorcyle just doesn't cut it for me.
Actually there are a lot of laws and regulations concerning all those things--it's all a matter of degree. Skydiving and snowboarding places have to conform to all kinds of regulations to ensure safety is of the utmost concern. Sure, you can go "off-piste" but the majority of this type of activity is going to be in places where certain safety laws can be and are enforced.
Even with what we eat, there are laws governing the safety of food and laws that require manufacturers to place nutritional labels and schools are often required to provide balanced meals to their students these days.
Yeah, they're not exactly equivalent, but they are all attempts by the government to (indirectly) regulate behaviour of the public in an effort to keep them safe.
I've heard people agrue on this very forum that we should do away with the FDA and leave it up to consumers to get themselves educated as to what medications are safe and effective for them.
In the end, it all comes down to what's enforceable and what limits on privacy we are willing to accept. Helmet and seltbelt laws are enforced on shared, public roads and are seen by meny as extensions to existing laws which make our roads (reasonably) safe to drive on.
Intrusion into the home and our diets is another matter entirely. Then you start butting up against privacy issues big time and, in the end, any effort to control a person's behaviour regarding eating would be doomed to failure.
Ed, you said, "That simply isn't true. You have to have a license to get married, but the courts still recognize the right to get married as a fundamental right. And equal access is not necessarily guaranteed even if something is a right."
The right to get married is a fundamental right that the state controls by requiring that you obtain a license before you can exercise that right? Court rulings to contrary notwithstanding, in my book that makes it a privilege. Calling it a right doesn't make it a right. And if the state can control who has access to a "right," that makes it a privilege. Calling it a right does not make it one.
Tacitus, Good points. I'd add that Ed's complaints about being able to eat saturated fatty foods are a strawman. The suggested ordinance is to regulate what restaraunts can serve in their ingredients - a justifiably regulated activity. It has nothing to do with what food you can buy and eat yourself - something there has never been any attempt to regulate, nor any good reason to do so, as far as I know.
The Constitution says voting is a right, but yet in many states felons can't vote. Right, or privilege?
I hate the rhetoric of "privilege," regardless. Just because the state has the power to deny your ability to drive for whatever reason it wants doesn't mean it is justified in doing so. "It's a privilege, not a right" is not in itself an argument for any regulation.
Do you not buy and eat food yourself at restaurants?
Yes, it is a strawman to compare helmet laws to restaurant food-safety laws such as ingredient bans. But helmet laws are analogous to laws regulating how much bacon you can eat in your own home. Or, laws forbidding not only motorcycles, but small cars as well.
I would like to see a couple of dispassionate studies:
1: a comparison of the actual dollar amounts of brain injuries of unhelmeted motorcyclists vs the actual dollar amount of heart disease related to lifestyle
2: a comparison of the accident rates between experienced, helmeted riders and experienced, unhelmeted riders, so those anecdotes aren't the whole story. We need to test the claim (made by the most experienced riders, who incidentally have the fewest accidents) that helmeted occlusion of vision and hearing affects the probability of having an accident in the first place.
After all, the ER and rehab workers never see the ones who don't have an accident in the first place. Before dismissing all non-helmet-wearers as 'stupid' it would be worth checking if there is something to that claim, and examining its effect on total cost.
Not that total cost is the sole determinator of freedoms. To some extent we do share the cost of choices we wouldn't personally make.
(I do wear a helmet. The question is, should everyone else be forced to do the same.)
Please don't light any matches. There's way too muh straw around here. Yes, I buy and eat food at restaraunts myself. As I said, the proposed ordinance does not regulate my ability to do that. It does regulate what the restaraunt owner may serve to me.
And again, as far as I know there are no laws preventing me from buying anything I want - from whoever wants to sell it to me as long as they are not in a regulated serice industry - and eating it.
Pelican's-Point said:
Look at how that same construction can be turned to other outlets:
"Yes, I buy and read books at bookstores myself. As I said, the proposed ordinance does not regulate my ability to do that. It does regulate what books the bookstore owner may sell to me."
"Yes, I buy and watch movies at theaters myself. As I said, the proposed ordinance does not regulate my ability to do that. It does regulate what movies the theater owner may offer to me to watch."
That kind of stuff scares me, and it ought to scare you, too.
Then you suffer from a sad lack of imagination or a basic understanding of human nature. There is no difference between telling a restaurant owner he cannot sell you something to eat, and telling a grocer he can't sell you something to cook and eat yourself. There is literally no difference whatsoever. And once it's illegal for anyone to sell you that substance, it makes not a whit of difference that it's not illegal for you to eat it.
Ompus, I misworded my post... What I meant to say was the 99% of injured riders who cannot directly pay their expenses.. I dropped that part of the sentance, sorry.
Don't knock drinking. I do it in 'moderation'.
I think the basic problem in this thread is that some people confuse health and safety regulations with civil rights. The government has the authority to regulate some areas of our lives. When it does that, our civil rights may be violated. If they are we can sue the government to re-establish our civil rights.
If they are not violated, then any restrictions on our freedom are not violations of our civil rights - they are the price we pay for living in a large and complex society where we elect officials to establish regulations for our general wellfare.
If you don't like those regulations your recourse is to elect another person to office who better shares your opinions about where those lines should be drawn.
Regulations can be used for nefarious and oppressive purposes by people who elect unprinipled officials to office for the purpose of oppressing minorities. We have only the courts to defend us.
Regulations we don't like, like seat belt and helmet laws, are not the same thing as oppression. They are examples of governments balancing the rights and responsibilites of citizens while trying to provide for their safety and health - according to the wishes of those who elected them.
Conflating the two makes a joke of the fight against real oppression IMO - a fight that we should be more willing to make before it's too late. Yelling about motorcycle helmets is a distraction from the real fight we should be waging. It is not anything close to the same thing and it devalues the whole notion of civil rights to say it is.
So we should ignore the increasing regulations chipping away at our ability to live our lives as we so choose in order to "protect us from ourselves," in favor of complaining about....what? What constitutes "real oppression" for you? And why are we only allowed to object to one or the other?
No, you should not ignore them. Complain and work to get someone elected who makes regulations more to your liking. But, don't claim that your fundamental rights are being taken away. They are not. Only the privileged (typically wealthy, white people) would claim that seat belt laws and helmet laws infringe on their liberty. That's just a sick joke IMO on the people in this country who are oppressed.
You are "allowed" to object to anything you want. If you want to claim that helmet laws infringe on your basic liberty then I'll call BS on that - which I am also free to do. Although I mentioned a couple of things in a previous post, what constitutes "real oppression" for me is another discussion.
pelican, the point is that helmet laws and seatbelt laws do not provide for the general welfare. Roethlisberger choosing not to wear a helmet harmed you in no way. Therefore it is oppression, however small, to strip people of liberties without any general welfare justification.
Ed and others,
You seem to be making rather excessive use of the slippery slope argument when talking about "paternalism." Could you not just as easily say: "all arguments are in danger of turning into a slippery slope"?
Just because the claim "the government should ban fatty foods because they can indirectly increase everyone's health care costs" is in the same logical form as "the government should ban motorcycle riding without a helmet, because it can indirectly increase everyone's health care costs" or "the government should ban felons from owning assault rifles because they can indirectly increase everyone's health care costs" does not make all three arguments equally valid. You cannot reject the latter simply because "the same argument" could be used to justify the former. Isn't there room for a rational consideration of the relative costs to society as a whole associated with any proposed violation of personal freedom? Must we support ALL personal freedoms, no matter how risky, out of fear that "if we give up one, what's to stop them from taking the rest"? Surely the relevance of indirect societal costs doesn't need to be all-or-nothing?
I know there are better arguments for libertarianism that this, so why keep returning to that canard?
I wrote:
And pelican's point wrote:
Do you really think you've answer my question? You didn't even attempt it. The difference between a right and a privilege is not defined by "inherent danger" any more than it is defined by whether a license is required. Your argument here is absolutely irrelevant, since not wearing a helmet is not an inherent danger to others. And your argument that driving is a privilege and not a right was pure bullshit, a conclusion supported by the fact that, when asked, you don't have a clue what the difference is.
And why are they challenged and removed? Because they violate someone's freedom. Just like someone's freedom - their right to make their own choices, even if they're bad for them, as long as they don't harm another against their will in the process - is taken away here. They're challenged and removed because people stand up and object to them, as I'm doing here.
And to the courts, of course. And the constitution. And I've told you this multiple times, but you continue not to grasp it - the fact that the government has the authority to regulate the driving of vehicles on public roads, just like having the authority to regulate restaurants, does not mean that any regulation they decide to put on is a legitimate regulation. Some regulations will still overstep their legitimate authority. So merely pointing out that some regulations are legitimate does not defend the legitimacy of all potential regulations.
But you've done no such thing. You just keep repeating "this is for the poltiical process to decide", yet every time I use my voice to affect that political process toward my position, you just mindlessly repeat "this is for the political process to decide". It's idiotic and it's becoming incredibly annoying.
And this might be the most idiotic argument you've made so far. When all else fails, go for that fake class consciousness argument. Would my position be any more or less valid if it was given by a poor black guy? It's either valid and reasonable or it's not. If the best argument you can make against my position is that there are worse forms of oppression out there, it's time to shut up. You have no case.
Matthew, As I said, if you think seat belt and helmet laws are illegal and arbitrary infrinfgements on your basic liberties - sue the government and let the USSC decide. However, I suspect that someone has already thought about that and didn't get very far.
The general welfare justification is that the majority of those who elect officials to write regulations believe that it is good and creates a generally safer and saner driving world when people are required to wear seat belts and helmets. The majority of people generally feel better about that - and their general welfare is therefore improved.
tacitus wrote:
And there is a big difference here between protecting a consumer's safety by making sure the service provider is using good equipment and following basic safety rules (because someone going skydiving likely has no idea what safety precautions are required and rely on the company to protect their safety) and a person choosing not to wear their helmet on a motorcycle. The latter is endangering only themselves and they are doing so knowing all the risks.
Again, entirely different situations. Nutitional labelling is a good thing because it allows informed choice. Schools should be required to provide balanced meals because the students are forced to be there and the government has a responsibility to them while they're there. That doesn't mean government can ban them from eating twinkies when they go home.
They're not even close to equivalent, and the distinctions aren't minor, they're very, very important.
But so what? That has nothing to do with the validity of this argument. "I've heard people make an entirely different argument that I think is ridiculous" is hardly a compelling argument against the position you're disputing now.
I don't care how they're viewed by "many", I care whether they are legitimate exercises of authority or not. And frankly, I'm just not willing to accept the limits on government that most of my fellow citizens are willing to accept. I don't think most Americans really believe in liberty at all, which can be seen in the fact that every time a court strikes down a law that violates liberty, there is a huge outcry.
But see, this is where we really part company. Privacy is not merely a question of geographical location. Privacy is not about whether you're in your home or not. Privacy is about self-determination, the right to make one's own decisions about their life free from the unjustified interference of others.
Mark Paris wrote:
And calling it a privilege does not legally distinguish it from a right. And even if I granted your distinction, it still doesn't support your conclusion. Even if something is a privilege, that doesn't mean that the government can regulate it in any manner they see fit.
pelican, democracy doesn't work that way. In order to violate a liberty you need to prove that it is for the general welfare. Just saying "we all agree" doesn't mean anything. The only possible general welfare argument I can see is related to insurance costs, but I've yet to see anyone make that argument except in the abstract. As far as I'm concerned, liberty gets the benefit of the doubt, you need substancial evidence of greater good to violate it. I'm not even a libertarian. I'm just against arbitrary uses of power. This seems pretty arbitrary to me.
pelican's point wrote:
Again, the fact that serving food in a restaurant is a justifiably regulated activity does not mean that any regulation they choose to place on it is justified. We already went over that a few days ago. But what is the difference, given your reasoning, between regulating what we can eat in a restaurant and what we can buy in a store? Grocery stores are also justifiably regulated, aren't they? So if the government can say that a restaurant can't serve high fat foods, why can't it say that a grocery store can't sell high fat foods? There is absolutely no principled distinction between them.
How could anyone possibly argue that? Helmets don't make you less likely to have a wreck for christs sakes; they make you less likely to get hurt if you do have a wreck. The roads would be no less safe tomorrow for you or me if everyone but us decided to not wear seatbelts or helmets any more.
That's as clear an explanation as there is. You are making your argument that these laws are a violation of your basic rights and liberties to do anything you wish unless you are a danger to others. You don't have such a right. We elect governments to enact regulations that we like. There is no requirement that a prohibited activity is dangerous to others. There is a requirement that it not be arbitrary and that it doesn't violate rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. That's it.
Either sue the government or run for state office on a "driving regulation reform" ticket. In the meantime, wear your helmet.
Ken Brown wrote:
I think this is a perfectly valid form of argument unless one can point to some reasonable place to stop the steady incursion on our liberties that this portends. There is nothing inherently illogical about slippery slope arguments - there are good ones and bad ones. Bad ones are arguments that ignore reasonable checks on the downward slope, logical distinctions between the first instance of a rationalization being used and its later, proposed uses to justify further intrusions. In this case, there simply are none. If the government is justified in taking away a given liberty because it potentially leads to ill health and that cost might get spread out to others through the health care system, then what is to prevent that justification from being used in the other ways that I suggest? Some of the most extreme examples, like coming in to our homes to check the contents of the fridge, might be checked by the 4th amendment (assuming we still have one - *nervous laughter*), but that still leaves a hell of a lot of room for making us a much more heavily regulated society in the name of better health.
And believe me, the notion of controlling what foods we can purchase is hardly an idle bit of paranoia. Just today, a group filed suit to force KFC to stop using transfats to fry their chicken, and as I reported last week, the city of Chicago is considering legislation to ban frying with certain types of oil in restaurants. But we know from lots of research that people prefer to eat fries that are fried in such fats. McDonald's has tried twice to phase out the use of trans fats and gotten bombarded with complaints and dropping sales. The fact is, we like that food and we know damn well it's bad for us. I say we have that right. We own our bodies, not the government.
pelican wrote:
It violates the 9th amendment.
pelican's point wrote:
Wow. What's so perfect about this answer is that you don't even realize that you're making the exact same argument that the right makes in favor of, for example, anti-sodomy laws. It's exactly the same. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say you have a right to engage in sodomy, and since we elect governments to enact the laws we like and sodomy laws are popular, this is a perfectly acceptable regulation. Repeat this argument against gay marriage, it's identical. It's nonsense, whether used by the right or the left. The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of all the rights we have, leaving government the authority to regulate anything not explicitly listed. I've detailed this in dozens of posts over the last few years about unenumerated rights, the 9th amendment and the presumption of liberty. And I'm guessing that you're totally on board with me when I argue against the right's absurd use of that argument, but you still use the same reasoning to defend whatever governmental regulation you happen to favor. But you can't have it both ways. Without the presumption of liberty, all of our freedoms are at risk, and we cannot invoke it in one case and ignore it in others.
In fact, grocery stores are subject to similar regulations. Right now, grocery stores can sell saturated fatty foods. But, that could change. Helmet laws could be stiffened - or thrown out too.
Once the government (we) decide that an activity (like driving or selling food to customers in grocery stores or restaraunts) is subject to regulation, then unless those regulations violate some constitutionally protected right, you can not justifiably claim that your fundamental rights and liberties are being violated.
You can claim that the regulations go too far. I'd probably agree with you in many cases. But, unless we get an active majority to agree with us, and back up their opinion with votes, we're SOL.
But, in the meantime we should be complaining about our constitutional rights being violated. That's just silly.
Ed, first let me say that I am not necessarily arguing for helmet laws, although I find it hard to get too exercised about them. I am simply arguing practicality. There is no legal definition of a "right"; it is a philosophical term defined in the particular only when legally recognized. That might or might not (I say it does) violate the inherent principles of the Constitution, which I believe identified certain specific rights that inhere to the individual. I also believe that there are other rights not identified by the Constitution that people possess simply by virtue of being persons. However, the US government in its current state does not follow that interpretation strictly. I agree in theory that every encroachment should be fought, but the practical me recognizes that the best we can hope for is to win a few fights here and there. I choose not to bloody myself over helmet laws when there are more important battles to fight.
But a licensed right is an oxymoron. A right is something that a person possesses without regard to government action.
Ed, Anti-sodomy laws, gay marriage prohibitions, etc. are real examples of bad people using the authority to regulate for health and safety - to oppress people they don't like. Those are arbitrary and do violate the 9th amendment.
Drawing lines is not easy. The RW is already stacking the courts in their favor. And they have hundreds of smart lawyers helping them write laws that will be more difficult to overturn.
Don't you think when people say that seat belt or helmet laws violate the ninth amendment - that makes it harder to be taken seriously regarding real oppression. The kind that makes people second class citizens and can wreck their lives, like anti-sodomy laws and their many extensions.
Ken Brown made an important point about how to discuss these kinds of ideas.
Ken said: Isn't there room for a rational consideration of the relative costs to society as a whole associated with any proposed violation of personal freedom? Must we support ALL personal freedoms, no matter how risky, out of fear that "if we give up one, what's to stop them from taking the rest"? Surely the relevance of indirect societal costs doesn't need to be all-or-nothing?
Ken's point suffers only one flaw: "Society as a whole" bears no costs. Individuals bear costs, and, often enough to be labelled "always," the costs of some individuals are spread to others.
Being one of those others, I ask, "What does it cost me if someone else doesn't wear their helmet?" Well, it could cost me in many ways:
* If they are a relative or friend, then their injury or death would cost me emotionally.
Do I consider that sufficient reason to try to compel them to wear a helmet? Yes, to the utmost of my ability.
Do I consider that sufficient reason to compel others I don't know to wear a helmet? Nope.
* If they are not a relative or friend, then their injury or death would not cost me much emotionally. If I were to kill someone accidently, "it's not my fault" is enough to get me through the night. I'd feel bad for their family, and offer my sympathy, but I'm certainly not going to go around forcing people to act in a way so I don't potentially feel bad.
* If I am directly financially responsible for them, then their injury or death would cost me money.
Do I consider that sufficient reason to try to compel them to wear a helmet? Yes, to the utmost of my ability.
Do I consider that sufficient reason to compel others I don't know to wear a helmet? Nope.
* If I am not directly financially responsible for them, then their injury or death may cost me money.
Do I consider that sufficient reason to try to compel them to wear a helmet? Only to the extent that it could be shown that the costs I would pay in the attempt to compel would be less than the costs I would pay for their accidents. Except I am more likely to sacrifice bear a financial burden for the sake of liberty than give up my freedom to save a little money.
Compelling others costs not only money, but time and freedom on the part of the "compellers." I like to spend my time doing things I think are more important than forcing motorcyclists I don't know to wear helmets.
But I'm not the one forcing them, it's true. However, the ones who are doing the forcing are putting their costs on me, and they haven't shown that I benefit from paying those costs.
So, to the pro-helmet-law faction: Please show me how I benefit from your behavior and I will support it.
Thanks for the good discussion. It's time for dinner. I'll check back later if anyone's still interested.
Precisely, and cannot that exact argument be used to show that this is not, in fact, a slippery slope? Why appeal to a slippery slope at all, when you can (much more effectively) appeal to our right to decide for ourselves what risks we are willing to take? Provided, of course, that those rights do not place others at excessive risk. Isn't there room here for determining how much indirect risk is acceptable to society, and how much is excessive, without immediately appealing to a slippery slope?
Spike, your comments are right on target.
I agree with pelican's-point that there are bigger fish to fry. This government is the closest I've come to living under totalitarianism since I left Singapore. But I was only a visitor there, whereas this is "America, My Home Too."
So let's get back to the discussion of protecting the -rights- of people to:
enter into whatever kind of marriage contract they want with other adults
be publicly charged with their crimes
have access to legal representation
have privacy
speak their minds (excluding libel and slander)
be secure in their persons
dispose of their property as they see fit (so long as it does not directly harm others)
do business with whom they choose
educate their kids the way they see fit
protect their lives from being ended for the convenience of others
end their lives in the manner they choose
read what they want
watch what they want, etc. etc. etc.
I hear a Libertarian voice crying in a two-party wilderness.
pelican's point wrote:
Why? Because you say so? I think you're fumbling around for some coherent conception of legitimate authority and legitimate rights because you clearly don't have one. You've tried the right/privilege distinction, which is a non-starter from the get go. You've tried to argue that the government can regulate anything that isn't explicitly mentioned as a right in the Bill of Rights, but that's wrong on two different, and seemingly opposite grounds:
1. Wrong in the assumption that all rights are listed in that document. That is absolutely false. In fact, the men who framed the bill of rights were very clear to say that there was no way they could possibly list all of the rights an individual has, and that it was wrong to assume that only those rights explicitly listed are constitutionally protected. That was the whole purpose of the 9th amendment, to point out that there are unenumerated rights.
2. Ironically, also wrong in the assumption that if a right is listed, it can no longer be regulated. Free speech is explicitly listed as a right, but that doesn't mean it cannot be regulated at all. We still have laws against perjury and fraud, for example. We have freedom of the press, but any newspaper publishing troop movements in time of war is still going to be prosecuted.
Clearly, then, the distinction between a legitimate law and an illegitimate one is nowhere near where you think it is. For that matter, it doesn't appear that you have any coherent means of distinguishing between the two. Let me try and provide you with one.
How do we determine whether an assertion of an unenumerated right is legitimate or not? You say above that sodomy laws are "bad people using the authority to regulate for health and safety", but that is hardly a coherent standard for determining such a thing. It's arbitrary to decide who is and isn't "bad people", or what their motivation might be. Indeed, those who argue for sodomy laws make arguments that sound very much like your arguments for restaurant regulation:
Sodomy is the most common way that diseases like AIDS are spread in the gay community, costing us billions of dollars a year in health costs, not to mention billions more in research to find new treatments for a disease that is spread through the willful actions of adults. It is perfectly reasonable for the government to ban such activities that have an enormous cost to society.
It's not difficult to construct such a rational, secular defense of anti-sodomy laws. Furthermore, they would argue, it's up to electoral bodies, not unelected judges, to decide what society as a whole thinks is legitimate regulation and what is not. Sound familiar? That's the same argument you made for other regulations you support. The question is, can we come up with a coherent, principled distinction between what is a legitimate exercise of authority by the government and what is not? Another way of saying this is, can we come up with a coherent, principled means of determining what is and is not a legitimate assertion of an unenumerated right? I think we can, in both cases.
The first thing we have to recognize is the philosophical basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which is the notion of natural rights. Under this idea, rights pre-exist government. We are born with unalienable rights and we institute governments for the purpose of protecting those rights. Thus, it is absurd to think that we could list each and every right that we have - they are, quite literally, limitless. We create the government and we cede to it only that authority necessary to protect those pre-existing rights; any assertion of authority that diminishes those rights is, by definition, an illegitimate exercise of authority on the part of the government. The government does not grant us rights; we grant the government authority. And as Jefferson put it, the legitimate authority of government extends only to those acts that are injurious to others, not to ourselves.
So where does the 9th amendment come in? How do we decide whether an assertion of an unenumerated right is legitimate (as you agree the right to consensual adult sexual relations is legitimate) or illegitimate (you say the right to eat what we want is not a legitimate right; I say it is)? The only coherent way to do so, I maintain, is through what Randy Barnett calls the presumption of liberty. Because it's impossible to list all of the possible rights an individual has, and because it cannot possibly be the case that the government may regulate any action not explicitely listed as a right, the only way to implement the 9th amendment is through a presumption of liberty. That is, the individual is presumed to have the liberty to do something unless and until the government can show that it has a compelling and legitimate interest in regulating that activity. That doesn't mean anarchy, of course; there are many types of regulations that easily meet such a standard (limits on free speech for fraud and perjury, for example). And going back to the natural rights philosophy that underlies our entire system, how do we decide what is and is not a compelling and legitimate governmental interest? By the purpose for which we create governments. We create governments to protect our rights and to protect us from the actions of others that might harm us against our will or deprive us of our rights. Does a law that tells you that you must wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle serve that end? No, it doesn't.
Jefferson spelled it out pretty clearly in discussing the legitimate use of governmental authority. The individual is to be constrained only by the rights of others:
That is a coherent place to draw the line. I would argue that it's the only coherent place to draw the line. And the presumption of liberty is the only coherent way to give meaning to the 9th amendment and the notion of unenumerated rights.
Ken Brown wrote:
I've made the straight principle-based argument here. I only invoked the slippery slope in responding to the various rationalizations for such laws, rationalizations that, as I've pointed out, would justify all sorts of further intrusions equally well, including intrusions that those using the rationalization would object to. Thus, those rationalizations become little more than special pleading, and that is perfectly fair comment.
I winced especially hard when I heard the Roethlisberger news. I ride bikes and scooters all the time, and 2-3 months ago i was in a wreck. I was in la-la land and pulled out right in front of a car. broke the woman's right side-view mirror completely off her car with my shoulder, slid across her windshield, and hit the ground. Due to fortunate circumstances, I wasn't seriously hurt. Reading about Roethlisberger's damage made me grimace. Reminds me of a guy I was next to one time in Boston. He was on a bike, wearing nothing--nothing--but a pear of thin soccer shorts, Umbros or something. I thought, are you fucking kidding me? There are two kinds of riders: guys who've laid bikes over, and guys who will lay bikes over.
I don't much care for arguments that lean on the slippery slope fallacy. And I am by no means a libertarian. (I WANT the government to take care of certain aspects of the common good that can only be accomplished by government authority. If there were to be an epidemic, for instance, I'd WANT forced vaccinations, if that was necessary for public health.)
But, I am not interested in "the government" or its representatives, elected or not, at whatever level, acting in loco parentis. Objections to helmet laws might sound silly, until one considers that those laws are predicated on the notion that it's ok for some people ("the government") to treat other adults as if they were children.
The slippery-slopey implications of this might indeed be frightening, but that's not what concerns me. It's the actual fact that someone I don't know, possibly with no accountability, maybe not even identifiable, thinks they can tell me anything about how I may be permitted to live my life. That's creepy. It's also an attitude that is antithetical to a society of free adults.
Restrictions on "rights" are a bit more common than Ed realizes, encompassing not just perjury but also time and manner restrictions. Thr current administration has taken these to fetish levels, but from a legal framework, they remain sound.
Similarly, states, having a traditional interest in the health and welfare of their citizens, have the ability to enforce regulations concerning behavior to the extent that such regulations have a rational relation to the end sought. Hence Whizzer White's decision in Bower v Hardwick.
The modern competing principal has been the "Liberty Interest" argued in cases such as Lawrence. This is, in principal (though not stated in S CT opinions) a variation on the 9th Amendment argument, that powers not granted are reserved to the people.
Whereas the current court seems well on the way to rolling back Commerce Clause overreach from the past, there is little indication that Lawrence was more than a highwater mark of personal liberty. Of course, now that all actions are part of the GWOT WHICH MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED, prior theories of freedom are moot.
Ed, I agree with almost everything you say. I have a problem, however, with . .
First, I did not say, "the right to eat what we want is not a legitimate right". I said, we do not have an unlimited right to sell any food we want to others. As far as I know there are no laws against eating any particular food.
Society has decided, based on people dieing from eating bad food, that we want to regulate what foods get sold to us commercially as well as the cleanliness of the establishments. I assume you approve of those regulations generally.
Once we decide on an area of regulation as legitimate we are then faced with drawing reasonable lines. People will always differ on where those lines should be - they will always reduce someone's freedom.
I am saying that we should not invoke the "violation of our basic liberties" when those lines are not drawn where we would personally draw them. Instead, we should invoke an argument to reasonableness. For whatever part of your argument is in that vein, I approve.
However, (according to Pelican's razor) a regulation that attempts to regulate what consenting adults do privately, must have an obvious and overwhelming appeal to public safety or expense. This is especially true when those advocating for strict regulation of an activity are philosophically opposed to that activity or to the social group that practices that activity.
It should also be practical. No-one could sensibly suggest that a law could prevent gay men from having unprotected sex or that drug addicts will stop using needles. Instead, we use education, needle exchanges, free condoms, etc. Still, even though unprotected gay sex and dirty needles may be the greatest cause of the spread of AIDS in the US, because only those who do those things are succeptible, we do what we can (or should) and as a society we still pay the bills.
I can see where helmet and seat belt laws are a statement by society that . . .
a) driving is an inherently dangerous activity that kills thousands every year, often innocent people who were not driving recklessly,
b) and through uniform and sensible regulations we should do everything that is reasonable to reduce the number of deaths and injuries, without regard to who is being put at risk,
c) and we weigh personal inconvenience against death and injury, and in those instances where inconvenience is minimal and the reduction in injuries and death is significant, we will make some people a little inconvenient,
d) even when only their own life and injury is at stake.
I think that's a legitimate public policy aimed at reducing death and injury on the highways - across the board. When I pay my highway taxes I don't expect the state highway commissioner to say that yeah, traffic fatalities and serious injuries went up last year but that was just motorcycle drivers without helmets and people who didn't use their seat belts.
I want everyone on the road to think of their driving as a privilege - that drving is restricted to following the rules and not doing unnecessarily dangerous things - either to themselves or others. I don't want any drivers out there thinking of driving (on public roads that I share) as an expression of their freedom.
Taking chances is a frame of mind that one adopts. Some drivers live in that frame of mind. It's hard to believe that those drivers would voluntarily be that careful with my life. I know they are not going to value my life more than their own.
That's why I demand a public policy that does everything reasonable to reduce death and injury on the highway - without regard to whose life is at stake.
kehrsam wrote:
Not more common than I realize, just more common than I bothered to state. I was just using a couple of examples to show that even if something is considered a right, and stated to be one explicitly in the bill of rights, that does not rule out some types of regulation.
Eh, sometimes. In some cases, the rational basis test has been booted in favor of a more stringest test, and I think that is as it should be. Bowers was, of course, overturned by Lawrence, which I consider one of the most important decisions in a long time.
Yes, I agree. And for the moment, that argument appears to have some momentum. I hope it continues. I truly hope that 20 or 30 years from now we can look back at Lawrence and say that it was the turning point toward a broader recognition of the presumption of liberty and the end to the strained privacy analysis of Griswold, rather than being a legal anamoly.
I'm not sure why you think the court is well on its way to rolling back commerce clause overreach. I wish that was true, but I don't see much evidence for it. The Raich ruling, where the court affirmed that the commerce clause could cover activities that were neither interstate nor commerce, certainly seems to suggest otherwise. The Rehnquist court made a couple of early feints in that directions with Lopez and Morrison, but Raich effectively ended that trend. I hope the same doesn't happen to Lawrence.
Speaking of fattening fods and legal issues, here's an example of something that burns my ass.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/13/news/companies/kfc.reut/index.htm
As much as I look askance at (and blog about, as luck would have it) people who claim there is no such thing as "junk food" and that any effort by the government to make information about what lack of exercise and greasy fare can engender amounts to totalitarianism, I really can't stand some of the crap the CSPI pulls. Seriously, doesn't this read like something from The Onion?
I'm sorry, but eating at a place like KFC and later suing because you might have unsuspectingly noshed on some not-so-heart-healthy fare is like skydiving without a 'chute and retrospectively bitching that the pilot dodn't explain that the impact was going to hurt more than stubbing a toe. If such suits are successful or even treated as legitimate, we're one step closer to seeing laws that will have the net effect of limiting consumer freedoms.
As for "driving is a privilege, not a right": Should the government ever take away that "privilege" en masse because it's in their interest, the ensuing revolution would likely impress the founding fathers. For all intents and purposes, driving is a right. A right that is regulated by the state (as much as the ownership of firearms is).
Ed: Are you outraged that the government requires you to submit to a rather humiliating set of searches as a precondition before you exercise the privilege of getting on an airplane?
If not, then why is it outrageous for the government to set a far less intrusive precondition -- wearing a helmet -- on individuals as a precondition before they exercise the privilege of getting on a motorcycle?
The only answer Ed's given so far on this thread has to do with the legitimacy or lack thereof of certain goals the government might have (e.g., to protect individuals from theselves vs. to protect them from others). But philosophically, side-constraints aren't determined by the intent of the actor and/or the actor's goals -- they're determined by the act itself. (That's the whole point of the First Amendment, for example.)
So which is it? In your view, should the government be constrained from setting preconditions on the exercise of various nonessential privileges? Or not?
Whether or not someone else wears his helmet is of little concern to my liberty. His exercise of liberty here does not negetively impact mine. On the other hand, whether or not someone else has a bomb or other weapon on the plane could very much effect my liberties (not to mention my life!). Particularly if I'm also on that plane.
I would note for the record that it is very stupid not to wear a helmet, but also stupid is to legislate against someone making that stupid choice. Just as it's my choice to drink Coca Cola even though I know it has no redeeming dietary traits.
Of course they should be constrained. The constitution is all about constraints on the power of government. There is though a difference between a government constrained from acting and one prevented from acting. No-one here is arguing that government should be prevented from limiting rights, only that any such limitation be justified in a coherent, non ad hoc fashion. And that in the absence of such justification, that the said rights are presumed to exist.
pelican's point wrote:
What you haven't done is provide any coherent distinction between what can be sold in a restaurant and what can be sold in a grocery store. Both are regulated by the health department. If the government can ban what restaurants can sell to us, they can also ban what grocery stores can sell to us, and on the very same basis. It's incredibly clear at this point that you just have not thought through the logical implications of your position and you don't have anything like a coherent and consistent distinction between legitimate governmental authority and illegitimate governmental authority.
Dave S. excises the part of my post that responds to his answer; namely, that limitations on governmental power are not driven by the intent behind such limitations.
Moreover, even Dave S.'s claimed intentionality distinction lacks a meaningful difference. No one is forcing you to get on the airplane, Dave. So long as you're aware in advance that there are no screening procedures preventing people from bringing weapons on board, it's your own libertarian choice to decide whether to get on the plane or not, isn't it? Why should the big, bad paternalistic government interfere with your decision to put your life at risk?
Andrew T wrote:
Because one restriction protects others from me (and me from others), while the other restriction protects me from myself. One is the government doing its job, protecting the life and liberty of the individual against others violating such; the other is the government being a nanny. The difference seems quite obvious to me.
It isn't anywhere near that simple. I don't buy the distinction between rights and privileges; I believe we have the right to do whatever we want absent a compelling state interest in regulating it. Without a compelling interest in regulating it, we have the right to do it regardless of whether you would classify it as a right of a privilege, essential or non-essential. And even in the case where something is considered a right, that does not mean necessarily that there can be no preconditions or regulations on it. Marriage is a right, legally, yet there are still some preconditions on it - but that doesn't mean that any precondition is okay. So your question just doesn't reflect the reality of rights and regulations.
Incredibly clear? That's pretty clear. ;-)
Actually, I have thought through my position carefully, more carefully than you it seems. My position is more complex - as in not simplistic. It requires that you look at my argument through another viewpoint than your own personal rights and freedoms. Sometimes this is necessary when you live in a society with 300 million others.
My position is that the question of personal rights and freedoms is pretty much determined when society chooses to regulate some area of our lives - like driving on public roads or selling food to others. Once we decide to do that, every regulation drawn will lesson someone's freedom. We should do our best to minimize those limitations, and spread them equitably - but the overall goal of the regulations must be the guiding force, i.e. to improve public safety in that area - knowing that every regulation will always limit someone's actions. That's a difficult process.
Example: Is it right that a skilled driver in a high performance vehicle should be required to drive 65 mph when they could easily drive safely at 100 mph on a clear stretch of road? Yes, for the reason that consistent and coherent rules serve the overall goal of improving road safety generally - even when someone's personal freedom must be illogically reduced.
People are still free to complain (as they certainly will), to elect new regulators, etc. But, arguments to personal freedom are no longer relavant. We have voluntarily given up personal freedom in that area in lieu of regulations to protect the safety of the public. Personal freedom is not the primary goal of the regulations. The larger public safety is.
Arguments to "diminished personal freedom" from everyone who fancies their right to take personal risks are then justly seen as immature rants against the authority that we put in place. They are dangerous because sometimes people do attempt to unjustly regulate parts of our lives that have little or nothing to do with public safety - or sometimes regulators use their position to limit the freedom of groups and individuals they do not like.
We should keep our powder dry for those cases. Especially now that they are increasing rapidly due to the rise in power of the social conservatives. In those cases we should stand up and scream about individual liberty and abuse of public power. But when people do that because they don't like where the lines are being drawn regarding things like seat belts and helmet laws (in the regulators' attempts to reduce highway fatalities and injuries through sensible regulations) we make the fight against real oppression that much harder to wage.
Instead, those who don't like those lines should make their argument to reasonableness and let the regulators get on with balancing the rights and responsibilities of all drivers.
Not everyone who disagrees with you has failed to think through the logical implications of their position. Your position might be stronger if you focussed on your principles and logic instead of my ability to think clearly.
pelican's point wrote:
No, but it's clearly true in your case. That's why you throw out nonsense like "that's not a right it's a privilege" and when asked to define the difference, suddenly fall silent. That's why you keep saying there's a difference between two situations that are logically equivalent (the government's authority to ban restaurants from serving us item X and the government's authority to ban grocery stores from selling us the same item, for example). Your position is incoherent, and I think that's clear to anyone who has read this exchange and the last one. And I'm perfectly content to let them do so and reach their own conclusions.
Ed, when I said that "we" should keep our powder dry for those who would really oppress us, I really meant you, specifically.
You have a huge megaphone. Every day, thousands of people read your thoughts and ideas regarding important areas like the insidious incursion of religion into science education. I'm glad they do. You are an effective warrior in this good fight.
I suggest that your voice in this area would be even stronger if you could get past your anger at silly things like helmet laws. The best warrior is he or she who chooses the best battles.
Thank you, Mr. Miagi.
p's-p,
But it's really the side arguments or meta-arguments that are more interesting than helmet laws, per se.
Such as:
When does government protection become more of a burden than the thing it's protecting against?
What's the difference between a right and a privilege and who has grounds to limit either?
When do the "rights of society" trump the rights of indiviudals?
How can "society," a non-entity, even be said to have rights?
(I also don't believe the legal fiction of saying corporations have rights, but at least corporations have charters and such that define what their boundaries are and how they will act, society has no such thing.)
Spike, I agree that those are all interesting questions. My opinion:
This is a question that's impossible to answer on any objective basis. Society collectively answers it at the ballot box every election (except that society can't choose to violate the constitution). Society (that's us) will change its collective view on this - so the answer requires constant adjustment and re-evaluation.
Rights are personal entitlements that are spelled out in the constitution. A privilege is a philosophical term but I think it can be a socially limited right. Practically, society chooses to regulate certain activities for the public good. All regulations will result in extending or limiting the rights and privileges of someone - in specific contexts.
I would reword the question as - when does society have the authority to limit someone's freedom to do whatever they want to do?
Whenever society (that's us) chooses to regulate some area of our own lives for the greater public good.
As Ed sed, society doesn't have rights - it has authority - in those specific areas where we use our collective right, as spelled out in the constitution, to grant it that authority.
pelican's point said:
You should take your own advice. Ed's original post was a single paragraph consisting of less than 150 words. He's written far longer posts on arguably more trivial things like Bravo's arbitrary ranking of the 100 funniest movies of all time. This post was far from a significant rant, and I frankly see little to fuss over about his original opinion. Whether you agree with him or not, Ed's a libertarian; of course he'd consider mandatory helmet laws an abuse of government authority (I know, I'm overgeneralizing).
I don't see Ed's "anger" directed at "silly things like helmet laws," but rather at the idea that the government can regulate whatever it wants with little or no justification, and at the expense of the people's liberty. Everyone here's been arguing about where the line should be drawn as to what is little or no justification, and where the individual's liberty begins and ends. These are worthwhile issues that should be discussed and are important to everybody, which I guess is why this thread has gotten so long.
Ed's blog isn't "100% critical issues of liberty, 100% of the time." If you think his voice is "weakened" by a 150-word post attacking helmet laws, are you similarly dismayed that Ed waists time talking about sports and pop culture?
Society can't do anything! Society doesn't vote, individuals do. Society doesn't have authority, individuals do, and they collect some of that authority into governments, and individuals acting as agents of the government execute that authority.
The term "society" has meaning when used in the same way as landscape, biosphere, etc., when you are describing how things look: "I live in a society where cheesy pop stars are glorified." "People in American society have problems with overeating."
The term "society" has no meaning when society is deemed to be an actor: "Society demands that we protect the poor." "American society has problems with overeating."
Not true. Some people in our society demand that other people protect the poor. People, individuals, not the group of all Americans, have problems with overeating.
When you say, "Society (that's us)," you must mean, "Me and all the people who agree with me," because when I don't agree, I'm not part of your society. At least I'm not treated as such, because the "will of society" (like the "will of god") is used as an excuse to try to force the me and the other intransigents into compliance.
So I disagree. Society has neither rights nor authority. It has no opinion, beliefs or goals. Society cannot demand, compel, or act in any way.
Boy did Big C nail that one right on the head.
My point isn't premised on the distinction between a right and privilege.
My point is that when the airline searches *you* before letting you board an airplane, they are not directly protecting you from others initiating force against you, unless you want to stretch that definition beyond reason. Government-mandated intrusive personal searches protect the individual, paternalistically, from having to evaluate for himself whether the airline does a sufficient job of keeping armed lunatics off the plane.
Put more succinctly: If I have the "right to be stupid" and ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, why don't I also have the "right to be stupid" and board an airplane that doesn't bother to screen its passengers?
Here, I'll even give an economic justification for it: A cheaper, non-screening airline would have fewer startup costs (no expensive X-ray machines and metal detectors) *and* fewer operating costs. Call our hypothetical nonscreening company "We Don't Give A Crap Airlines." Presumably, "We Don't Give A Crap Airlines" will be able to sell cheaper tickets.
Don't I have the right to weigh for myself whether I want to buy a cheaper ticket on "We Don't Give A Crap Airlines", or pay more for the airlines that squander all that money on X-rays? Why should the government take that choice away from me??
Put even more succinctly: any preventative measure is, by definition, paternalistic.