let's talk about mandating betterment.

i just read some alan dershowitz material on these three issues as their pertain to the philosophical take of john stuart mill. mill was of the stance that the government cannot make you do or not do certain things it thinks will be better or worse for you. it should not impede.

let's see where we sit here:

1 mandatory seat belt laws. should the government be able to fine you for not wearing seatbelts? on one hand, perhaps you think it's an intrusion of your rights. on the other, is there any way a rational being would consciously decide to not wear one? the stats are stacked. is this more of a laziness issue? also, does this increased risk of serious physical harm have any influence on insurance rates? is the fine something you should accept if you want to engage in this reckless behavior -- perhaps putting others at risk, too? and/or is the fine merely a "thank you for reminding me how important this is"?

2 mandatory helmet laws regarding motorcycles. it seems to dershowitz, and i would perhaps agree, that most people who do not wear helmets on motorcycles have made an active decision not to. whereas most non-seatbelt wearers come off as lazy or unaware by the importance of it, motorcyclists who don't wear helmets hate the laws mandating against their freedom. is there any influence on insurance rates in this venue as well? that's something to consider.

dershowitz says that there's something to be said of consciousness objectors who could make a claim they know the risks yet refuse to adhere. that would open an enormous door, though.


3 cigarettes. consider that cigarettes, used alone, cause only damage to the user. like not wearing a seatbelt, or not wearing a helmet, it's your choice if you want to increase your risk of death. however, exhaling smoke causes others health problems. what can the government do? i would say this could be similar to the seatbelt issue in that the stats are stacked, but people like smoking cigarettes. they get enjoyment from it. though, like i've said, it could be similar. consider this:

a single pill is created that, if taken, has a 100 percent cure rate for cigarette craving. once taken, any smoker will stop and never want to touch a cigarette again. what percentage of smokers do you think would take this pill? it seems to me most smokers will readily admit smoking is terrible for them.

would this not be very similar to the amount of people who, after the fact of an accident or something similar, would have wanted to be wearing a seatbelt or helmet?

i'm ... leaving a ton out, and just want to post this for now. i'll be back.

I used to be of the opinion that these laws were unjust. But then, I had an epiphany--you operate cars and motorcycles in (almost always) public spaces, therefore the gov't has the philosophical right to mandate certain activities in those spaces. And since seat belts and helmets have been proven to reduce injuries/deaths, I have no problem with mandating their use in such fashion.



I would think that the nearly all of the smokers above a certain threshold would take that pill. I don't know many smokers that don't realize their habit is debilitating. The problem is that there is no true magic pill that can get a smoker to quit like that, obiviously.

Just delving into semantics here. But technically speaking, the inside of your car, or what you do on your motorcycle trumps them being able to tell you what to do. This is why you can have a gun in your car, on your bosses private property. Your car is yours, not the governments.

The one thing that I do want to stress regarding the general topic that you have titled is this: The gov't should NOT have a responsibility to protect people from themselves, UNLESS the activity either infringes on other people's rights or takes place in TRULY public spaces.

However, we're seeing some encroachment into that territory. Since you mentioned smoking--as an example, banning it in privately-owned facilities that serve the general public (these are not "public" places, no matter how it is commonly defined), is wrong IMO (even though I love the law on a personal level because I fucking hate smoky rooms). Another scary slippery slope is whether the gov't can mandate healthy habits if it becomes more involved in the health industry.

If you take your own property into a public arena, however, why can't the gov't impose regulations on how that property operates? For example, would you be OK with a local gov't mandating that you have to have your dog on a leash in a public park, so that the dog does not do damage to the park's flora/fauna, or attack other people's dogs?

my question is where this runs into the passengers: what about parents driving their children?

i'm pretty much on board here.



the government has already begun to do that here in new york regarding trans fat or whatnot. considering how serious an issue health and eating habits of americans is on the health industry -- hospitals and so forth -- perhaps it is an issue the government should be taking up.

Interesting that you would agree with this, considering your next statement:



In what manner would you suggest?

I think the trans fat ban in NYC is an awful law, especially considering how unfair it is to restaurants when you can buy a trans-fat laden Twinkie in a convenience store with no consequence.

I'm not even fully on board with informative campaigns, especially with the proliferation of the Internet. I've learned more about healthy eating from the likes of Yahoo and Google than I ever would from the Food Pyramid.

the trans fat law i've not really looked into, to be honest, but yes, the health issue is one i've pondered. the issue here is that looking the consequences should only happen to the person engaging in the activities. in 2003, the cdc said obesity was the greatest public health concern in the united states. and people's health issues have an influence on the healthcare system, which trickles down.

what manner i would go about this, i do not know.

Then this falls into what you were talking about in regards to effecting other people. Leash laws exist to keep other dogs safe, keep strays off the streets, and protect the flora/fauna of the park.

That's nothing like a seatbelt law, or a right to carry in your vehicle law, or a helmet law. As my dad would say, "Let those who ride decide."

c_b, you should introduce more of Alan Dershowitz' argument here. Seat-belt laws, helmet laws and anti-smoking laws are all public health issues. One of the driving forces behind such laws is the cost to society incurred when individuals are involved in accidents or suffer from the long-term effects of smoking. Individuals do not pay for the consequences of these actions on their own. It benefits the public good if people wear seatbelts, helmets and stop smoking.

Is the question that you are posing, "Are these working examples of John Stuart Mill's principle of utilitarianism?"

dershowitz has two add-ons to mill's philosophy in regards to the government stepping in, outside of arguing it stepping in in the situations above do go to the public good:

1 the light pinky of the law (opposite of the heavy thumb). is a fine really that bad for mandating you to travel safer? it's not like we're throwing people in jail. like you said, this isn't even a benefit to just you, but to society. we should all strive to be as rational as possible. in this case, the government is actually helping us. go figure.
2 the thank you add-on. this is basically any situation where you're pretty sure carrying out an action now will have a person saying "thank you" later -- think of a motorcyclist actually wearing a helmet because of the law, then having his life saved. don't you think he'd be glad he wore the helmet?

I was thinking about Gary Busey here. There's also the "I wish that I had" factor.

It benefits the public for individuals to be smart enough not to take stupid risks, and the fact that the public assumes partial responsibility for these risks in part of the reason why people continue to take them. If you passed a law that said; "Anyone injured in an auto accident while not wearing their seatbelt cannot collect medical benefits from their insurance company", I would bet the problem would go away quickly.



I'm feeling lazy, and my hotel internet here in lovely Dayton, Ohio sucks, so I won't look up Dershowitz's argument, but there is are pretty glaring problems with this; it assumes that 1.) the fine is proportional to the offense, 2.) the fine actually works to correct behavior, 3.) the fines are issued in a just manner, and 4.) the body issuing the fine not just doing so to increase revenue, aka for-profit law enforcement.



If someone is not responsible enough to not take the most basic of protections for themselves, are they responsible enough to use a potentially dangerous product in public? I'm less concerned about the health of the helmet-less driver as I am about the manner in which such a person would operate their vehicle.

Which hotel are you staying at in Dayton. I too am currently in a hotel in Dayton, Ohio. Nice weather eh?

No, I don't think so. People don't wear seatbelts, helmets, stop smoking, etc. despite knowing the dire consequences of their actions. Many will change their behavior because of laws. If their insurance companies refuse to pay the cost for their care, then, when the victim had exhausted all resources, it would fall to the care-givers themselves who in turn will place the burden onto their pool of patients. I don't think that we can, in good conscious, legislate away the burden of care. Do you honestly think that paramedics and physicians would refuse to treat the critically injured because they weren't wearing seatbelts? The statistics indicate that such laws do save lives, even among the uninsured. And that in the aftermath of serious accidents many victims are glad that the laws existed.

Sorry, that example went the wrong direction.

Let me ask you this: who should decide the rules of public venues? I'd say it's the people via the officials they elect, and those officials should set the rules. If they don't like the rules set, they can always vote them out of office.

this argument leaves out the politics of government. these days, i'd venture a government gets better approval ratings if it, say, mandates seat belt wearing than if it does not. to not do so puts too much strain on the health system.

also, i didn't really read this thread, so.

That was one of Alan Dershowitz' arguments, so you were pretty much on track.

The lovely Hampton Inn over by Wright-Patt AFB. Only Hilton chain place I could find with a government rate. This weather sucks. And WTF is with all these shopping malls? Seriously, do people do anything other than work retail here?



Isn't a more valid question; "How did the negligent, in good conscious, legislate the burden of their care onto everyone else?" ? I don't doubt that first responders would treat them regardless, and I don't doubt that the cost of the negligent losing their coverage would be passed to the 'pool of insured people', but that's already the case. In the current scenario, the insurance company bears the immediate cost of the treatments, which it factors into increases in every one of it's client's premiums and decreases in payments to doctors and hospitals. So the care givers and the tax payers eat the costs anyway. The insurances companies are there to make a profit, they will not just suck it up when they incur a large cost. In my suggestion the first source of money to pay the bills is not the other clients of the insurance company, but the offender. Yes, the care providers will eat some costs, but it's not any different than it currently is, it's only that the insurance companies are distributing the expenses to those intelligent enough to buckle up. Hell, if it's really about saving lives, why not prevent a car from being put into gear unless the seatbelt is in place or have it's speed limited to 10mph until the driver buckles up?

And why seat belts? Doesn't smoking, drinking, eating red meat, not sleeping enough, unsafe sex, and not exercising also have measurable impacts on society? Why not fine people for those as well if advising them not to isn't enough?



I'll call BS on that. How would a statistician distinguish between those who would wear a seatbelt because it's the right choice, regardless of the law, and those who wore one only because of the law? Sounds like politically driven correlation between fatalities and the date some law was passed, after it therefore because of it. And asking the victims afterwards? What do they say "Hey, mister guy in a hospital bed, are you glad there are seat belt laws?" "Yeah, i mean it never would have occurred to me to wear a seatbelt if my state government hadn't threatened me with a fine."