Here come the UK SWAF teams!

[piscator]

[Negative shit negative shit all I post is negativity and attacks]

Health care for the vast majority in America is unaffordable.

Is that what you read? Or did you see it on TV too?

From the current economic state of Europe, I'd say health care is not so affordable for you either.

[pErvinalia]

Just more proof you are wilfully ignorant. As I've explained before an unsecure human is a missile in a car crash. Is it too much to ask that you could actually read what people write and ascent to learn something?

Must have missed that post. So, anyway, as long as the body stays in the vehicle, who cares? And if it doesn't, well, please let me know how many people in other cars are killed or injured by "unsecure human missiles" flying into their cars.

I expect you're gonna have some difficulty coming up with reliable numbers for that risk, which is likely to be sub-microscopic.

Let me know when the research has been done, the report written, and the peer review completed.

Until then, your attempt at pettifoggery is rejected.

I'd imagine there's probably plenty of those studies done in relation to seatbelt research. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about a person flying out of a car and killing someone else. I'm talking about an unsecured person killing or injuring other people inside the car. If you can't see how a 80kg mass with hard points flying around inside a car is a serious safety hazard to others in the car, then I can't help you (something I've learned over the years...)

Well of course they can, but so what? Everyone in the car accepts that risk don't they? If they don't accept that risk they can either demand that everyone wear seat belts or decline to ride in a car where one or more persons is not wearing seat belts. That is their right, and their responsibility, is it not? Why is the government involved in denying that freedom of choice to each and every passenger?

The only time that the government has any business at all interfering in such things is if the regulation prevents exported initiation of harm to other people who have not consented to accept that particular risk. That's why safety inspections to ensure that the vehicle is operating properly and speed limits are acceptable forms of regulation even under Libertarian principles.

You have not identified any way in which seat belt or helmet laws serve to protect the non-consenting general public against harm caused by the operators or passengers in or on a vehicle. Such regulations are specifically and only intended to protect the passengers and operators of the vehicle, and therefore constitute unwarranted interference with the essential liberties of those persons.

You're moving the goal posts, again. You claimed that seatbelts were a regulation to protect a person from themselves, not protect other people. I showed you how that was wrong.

[Seth]

Still talking the biggest crap Seth. Never changes does it.

Health care for the vast majority in America is unaffordable.

Didn't used do be, until Obama started meddling. Prior to that nearly 80 percent of people were satisfied with their health care and their health care insurance.

However "affordable" you might think American health care is or is not, it's factually the best, most advanced and most widely available on the planet. Anyone can get it whenever they want, wherever they want. No waiting years in lines to get an MRI. No having surgery cancelled because there aren't enough beds available. And those who need it, get it, one way or another.

[Seth]

Just more proof you are wilfully ignorant. As I've explained before an unsecure human is a missile in a car crash. Is it too much to ask that you could actually read what people write and ascent to learn something?

Must have missed that post. So, anyway, as long as the body stays in the vehicle, who cares? And if it doesn't, well, please let me know how many people in other cars are killed or injured by "unsecure human missiles" flying into their cars.

I expect you're gonna have some difficulty coming up with reliable numbers for that risk, which is likely to be sub-microscopic.

Let me know when the research has been done, the report written, and the peer review completed.

Until then, your attempt at pettifoggery is rejected.

I'd imagine there's probably plenty of those studies done in relation to seatbelt research. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about a person flying out of a car and killing someone else. I'm talking about an unsecured person killing or injuring other people inside the car. If you can't see how a 80kg mass with hard points flying around inside a car is a serious safety hazard to others in the car, then I can't help you (something I've learned over the years...)

Well of course they can, but so what? Everyone in the car accepts that risk don't they? If they don't accept that risk they can either demand that everyone wear seat belts or decline to ride in a car where one or more persons is not wearing seat belts. That is their right, and their responsibility, is it not? Why is the government involved in denying that freedom of choice to each and every passenger?

The only time that the government has any business at all interfering in such things is if the regulation prevents exported initiation of harm to other people who have not consented to accept that particular risk. That's why safety inspections to ensure that the vehicle is operating properly and speed limits are acceptable forms of regulation even under Libertarian principles.

You have not identified any way in which seat belt or helmet laws serve to protect the non-consenting general public against harm caused by the operators or passengers in or on a vehicle. Such regulations are specifically and only intended to protect the passengers and operators of the vehicle, and therefore constitute unwarranted interference with the essential liberties of those persons.

You're moving the goal posts, again. You claimed that seatbelts were a regulation to protect a person from themselves, not protect other people. I showed you how that was wrong.

They are. However, you may continue pettifogging if you like. The larger issue at the bar is individual liberty versus big-government nannyism. You still have not shown how seat belt or helmet laws (don't think I overlooked your ignoring that part of the argument) enhance the safety of anyone other than the wearer to the extent that such regulations outweigh the liberty of the individual to take such risks. Nor have you addressed the inherent danger in allowing government to intrude so deeply into an individual's personal choices.

[Seth]

Libertarianism and the cult of the individual, the ultimate evil yet in the end weak because a libertarian stands alone while everyone else stands as millions

Balderdash and willful ignorant nonsense.

[Seth]

Two topics.

1. Car seat belts.

Here in NZ, wearing seat belts was made compulsory, and it was strongly policed. Those who did not wear seat belts were very likely to end up paying a substantial fine.

End result was that the road toll dropped 10% in th year following seat belts being made compulsory. About 80 lives saved each year, which is a hell of a lot for a small country.

You can talk all kinds of 'principle', but a life saved is more basic and more important than airy fairy, wishy washy ideas of arbitrary principles.

On that basis the following must be banned in NZ:

Five gallon buckets.
Swimming pools.
Surfing.
Backpacking.
Walking
Running.
Fishing.
Boating.
Motor vehicles.
Gas appliances.
Electrical appliances.
Schools.
Offices.
Manufacturing plants.
Motorcycles.
Bicycles.
Kitchen knives.
Hammers.
Stones.
....

Well, you get the picture. It is obviously not true that " a life saved is more basic and more important than airy fairy, wishy washy ideas of arbitrary principles", not to people who are other than mindless slaves and fear-filled paranoids.

2. Benefits for the wealthy. Health or otherwise.

For this, I am going to define 'wealthy' as not having to work. In other words, having enough income from investments to be able to sit back and enjoy a comfortable life without having to supplement your income by having to go out and get your hands dirty by working.

In the western world, as a general overall average, being wealthy by this definition applies to only 1% of the population. The other 99% are forced to work to earn a living.

If 1% of the population (as in the USA) can afford excellent health care, while the other 99% cannot, then that is a severe indictment against that society.[/quote]

Except that's not the case. Not at all. Therefore your argument is a strawman.

[pErvinalia]

Must have missed that post. So, anyway, as long as the body stays in the vehicle, who cares? And if it doesn't, well, please let me know how many people in other cars are killed or injured by "unsecure human missiles" flying into their cars.

I expect you're gonna have some difficulty coming up with reliable numbers for that risk, which is likely to be sub-microscopic.

Let me know when the research has been done, the report written, and the peer review completed.

Until then, your attempt at pettifoggery is rejected.

I'd imagine there's probably plenty of those studies done in relation to seatbelt research. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about a person flying out of a car and killing someone else. I'm talking about an unsecured person killing or injuring other people inside the car. If you can't see how a 80kg mass with hard points flying around inside a car is a serious safety hazard to others in the car, then I can't help you (something I've learned over the years...)

Well of course they can, but so what? Everyone in the car accepts that risk don't they? If they don't accept that risk they can either demand that everyone wear seat belts or decline to ride in a car where one or more persons is not wearing seat belts. That is their right, and their responsibility, is it not? Why is the government involved in denying that freedom of choice to each and every passenger?

The only time that the government has any business at all interfering in such things is if the regulation prevents exported initiation of harm to other people who have not consented to accept that particular risk. That's why safety inspections to ensure that the vehicle is operating properly and speed limits are acceptable forms of regulation even under Libertarian principles.

You have not identified any way in which seat belt or helmet laws serve to protect the non-consenting general public against harm caused by the operators or passengers in or on a vehicle. Such regulations are specifically and only intended to protect the passengers and operators of the vehicle, and therefore constitute unwarranted interference with the essential liberties of those persons.

You're moving the goal posts, again. You claimed that seatbelts were a regulation to protect a person from themselves, not protect other people. I showed you how that was wrong.

They are. However, you may continue pettifogging if you like.

How is specifically addressing your false assertions "pettifogging"??

Only in Seth-land...

The larger issue at the bar is individual liberty versus big-government nannyism. You still have not shown how seat belt or helmet laws (don't think I overlooked your ignoring that part of the argument) enhance the safety of anyone other than the wearer to the extent that such regulations outweigh the liberty of the individual to take such risks.

Without having specific figures, neither you nor I can argue one way or the other from a practical basis. You argue from an ideological basis, so real facts mean nothing to you. But I have shown how society can benefit (whether it is to a net degree, we'd need a massive in depth analysis of years of data) from avoiding reduced workforce participation due to injury. And in most countries there's also the benefit of avoiding accident victims being a drain on tax payer funded health care. Even in the US the argument might apply, as you have a form of compulsory health care participation. So if there's lots of automotive injuries, premiums go up, and those who wear seatbelts and are safe would be paying for those who aren't being safe.

Nor have you addressed the inherent danger in allowing government to intrude so deeply into an individual's personal choices.

I've addressed that heaps of times. I'm ideologically more or less a libertarian (a social one, i.e. an anarchist), so I argue in favour of less rather than more government intrusion into personal lives. But I'm also a realist and realise that no ideologically pure system is likely to ever work, so society is best organised pragmatically around ideological points. And pragmatism says that a libertarian free for all would be detrimental to a lot of people, and that goes against the very point of coalescing into societies for mutual benefit.

[JimC]

The funny thing is, there are also many examples where existing regulations, or people advocating further actions by the state go way too far, and I would probably find myself on the same side of the fence as Seth. Examples include banning certain types of food and drink because of issues such as obesity, drug laws and health and safety regulations that are more about the joys of red tape to a bureaucrat than actual benefits.

But there are also plenty of examples which, on pragmatic grounds, simply work. Seat belts and helmets are clearly effective in bringing down the road toll, and therefore the reduction in an individual's freedom will be acceptable to the vast majority of the population. This last point is what really counts, Seth; if you had a strong undercurrent of resentment or rebellion against the imposition of these rules by the state, it would be another matter.

[pErvinalia]

To bring it back to bare ideological points (which I'm reticent to do these days, given Seth isn't actually a libertarian, he's a selfarian), one of the main points of contention between libbos and pragmatists is that Libbo's rely on a false understanding of human psychology. That is the concept of a "rational actor". Humans aren't rational actors by and large, and as such need to be somewhat controlled for their own good. And that's what we coalesce into societies for - our own good. So as long as the trade off of personal liberties isn't too great or isn't for specious or authoritarian reasons, then most people are happy (and it makes good scientific sense) to go along with that.

[laklak]

Lines, lines and more damned lines. Gotta draw them somewhere, eh? We don't do very well for ourselves without them, if history and personal experience are any guide, but it's a keen razor's edge for certain. The bureaucratic mindset is the chief culprit; bureaucrats (and hence bureaucracies) are self-aggrandizing by nature. Authority is addicting, and like any addiction requires larger and larger doses to achieve the same effect over time. Add a healthy disdain for the common man's intellect and a dash of Dunning-Kruger and you've got one potent, totalitarian brew indeed. It's a tricky balancing act, and I'm sometimes amazed we do as decent a job as we do.

[pErvinalia]

Except for your second last sentence, I agree more or less. The political class is a scourge on our societies and needs to be routed and replaced by real citizens.

[Blind groper]

As far as seat belts are concerned, there is no doubt of the immediate benefit of well policed laws requiring the wearing thereof. We have proven that in NZ beyond any reasonable doubt.

Nor is this a major imposition. It is a very minor inconvenience doing up a seat belt before driving. The cost is trivial and the benefits massive.

No one in NZ is kicking up a fuss about this being an infringement on civil liberties. That is because NZers are basically very sensible people who know that a human life is more important than libertarian bullshit.

There is a balance (isn't there always?) between infringing civil liberties, and the benefits to be obtained by those infringements. Some infringements even Seth does not argue with. What happens, of course, as always, is that a cost/benefit analysis is done. If the cost (the loss of liberty) is trivial, and the benefit is great, we go ahead. In the case of seat belts, the cost is so minor that only an idiot would argue against it. The benefit is 80 lives saved each year here in NZ. In the cost versus benefit analysis, clearly benefits outweigh the cost.

[laklak]

Except for your second last sentence, I agree more or less. The political class is a scourge on our societies and needs to be routed and replaced by real citizens.

Yep. I fear the days of Lucius Quinctius are far behind us.

[Seth]

Without having specific figures, neither you nor I can argue one way or the other from a practical basis. You argue from an ideological basis, so real facts mean nothing to you.

It depends on what you mean by "real facts."

But I have shown how society can benefit (whether it is to a net degree, we'd need a massive in depth analysis of years of data) from avoiding reduced workforce participation due to injury.

Yes, societies usually do benefit from enslaving the individual to the will of the majority. And workforce participation is generally speaking a good thing. However, there are things that are more important and beneficial than enforcing stupid rules that cost consumers billions and billions of dollars while interfering with their individual liberties and rights. Air bags were engineered and designed to REPLACE seat belts in automobiles. I know, I was around when they were invented. But a belt is never enough for nanny-staters, they mandate suspenders as well. So while there may be net economic benefits to mandating seat belts, there are net liberty costs to them, and the assessment of which is more important is not necessarily merely an economic one.

Your justification for imposing such regulations to enhance "workforce participation" makes the a priori assumption that workforce participation is more important than the liberty of the individual to assess and take risks. This assumption is based on your own socialist ideology that says that everyone is obligated to participate in the workforce so as to create benefits for society. The short version of that is called "slavery."

There is actual chattel slavery involving chains and whips and Jim Crow, and then there is the soft slavery of involuntary servitude to the collective that socialism insists on. When the government has the power to control your activities because it wants you healthy so you can labor, that's the death of individual liberty because the government views you as a chattel and a laborer who must be protected for the good of the collective, so he can work on behalf of the collective. This is not freedom, this is slavery and tyranny.

If I choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or climb mountains without ropes, or ski down precipitous slopes, or skydive, or SCUBA dive or drive race cars or shoot guns or throw axes or drive my car without a seat belt, that is my sovereign right as a free individual and no one, especially not the government, has any business interfering with my activities so long as they do not initiate force or fraud on another.

And in most countries there's also the benefit of avoiding accident victims being a drain on tax payer funded health care.

And there is the nut of it! Taxpayer funded health care is nothing more than the thin edge of the Marxist Progressive wedge in its attempt to take complete paternalistic control of each and every individual and what they do, watch, read, speak, eat and breathe. That is in fact what Obamacare is all about. Obamacare is not about providing health care insurance to all, it is about making health care insurance so expensive and unprofitable that it drives the private insurance companies out of business, whereupon the President can declare a "health care emergency" and use his executive power to impose socialized medicine on the people of the United States without their consent.

Even in the US the argument might apply, as you have a form of compulsory health care participation. So if there's lots of automotive injuries, premiums go up, and those who wear seatbelts and are safe would be paying for those who aren't being safe.

Ipse dixit quod erat demonstrandum

Nor have you addressed the inherent danger in allowing government to intrude so deeply into an individual's personal choices.

I've addressed that heaps of times. I'm ideologically more or less a libertarian (a social one, i.e. an anarchist), so I argue in favour of less rather than more government intrusion into personal lives. But I'm also a realist and realise that no ideologically pure system is likely to ever work, so society is best organised pragmatically around ideological points. And pragmatism says that a libertarian free for all would be detrimental to a lot of people, and that goes against the very point of coalescing into societies for mutual benefit.

You are no kind of Libertarian at all. You are a Marxist Socialist through and through, and what you just wrote proves it beyond any doubt. You don't like it when I discuss ideology because it conflicts with your ideology, which you cannot defend.

[Seth]

The funny thing is, there are also many examples where existing regulations, or people advocating further actions by the state go way too far, and I would probably find myself on the same side of the fence as Seth. Examples include banning certain types of food and drink because of issues such as obesity, drug laws and health and safety regulations that are more about the joys of red tape to a bureaucrat than actual benefits.

But there are also plenty of examples which, on pragmatic grounds, simply work. Seat belts and helmets are clearly effective in bringing down the road toll, and therefore the reduction in an individual's freedom will be acceptable to the vast majority of the population. This last point is what really counts, Seth; if you had a strong undercurrent of resentment or rebellion against the imposition of these rules by the state, it would be another matter.

If you believe that seat belts and helmets are acceptable to the vast majority of the population then why mandate their use? Why not just offer them as an option and allow the individual to decide if they wish to use them? The reason that they are mandatory is precisely because most people DO NOT want to wear them and only do so on the threat of a heavy fine. And the point is that where the liberties of the individual are concerned, what the vast majority of the population finds acceptable takes a distant second place to the rights of the individual to be left alone in situations where disobeying the regulation harms no one but those who have voluntarily undertaken to disobey. In short, society's interest in keeping me healthy so I can labor on their behalf is as nothing compared to my right to do as I please so long as I initiate neither force nor fraud.