Jonas and Erin challenged my statements, maintaining the Government did have a role in legislating my safety. I promised a response. I have decided to do it here so I can use the space I need. Let me begin by saying I am not sure I am smart enough or erudite enough to state my case with the accuracy I need. Please step right in and comment your opinion. Please keep in mind I am not picking on Erin's commenter Jonas here. I am using his well argued (albeit wrong) points to rebut my statements. This is my counter rebuttal.
It is my opinion that my failure to buckle up only affects me. Of course it affects my family etc., but the action (failure to take action in this case) only gets me killed. My not wearing a seatbelt has no direct action on any other individual. If I am drunk and drive, I can kill someone else. In the first case the Government has no role to protect me from my own stupidity. In the latter it has a responsibility to protect the public at large from my actions. Jonas argues
"When you say no one else is affected by not wearing a seatbelt, I'm not sure I buy that. Your potential injury and death have trickle down effects. Subsequent trip to the ER, insurance rates, your families loss of income and then the burden on the state if they cannot take care of themselves, etc., etc. Aren't those real affects/costs on other people? Motorcycle helmet laws are another great example."
This moves directly to the core argument, the very essence of the liberal/conservative debate. Jonas believes the State has a vested interest in mandating seatbelts as a means protecting itself from future costs. He justifies the laws against smoking and using drugs as further examples. Jonas later points out that an existence in today's society where we all do what we want as long as it does not hurt anyone is not possible any longer. We are too tied to each other socially and politically. Here he says it much better:
I think we live in a time and place where we can't do what we want at all times. This I mean if nothing else, in legal terms, as well as social-functional terms. Which is to say I'm not making a moral argument. It's just that I don't think our society (or, most others) can actually function if we don't consider other people. I know, that sounds simple and obvious, and you're only making a point about a seatbelt. So, I'm extrapolating a bit. Anyway, that's my point: as much as I may agree with your sentiment (that is, why should I be told what to do if no one gets hurt...which is, sort of the basis for our law system), our society is too complex interwoven to be able to actually live like that anymore. That is, unless you move out to Walden Pond and write every high school student's nightmare.
Such interdependence and interwoven trickle-down is caused by the very type of Governmental interference I am arguing against. His argument is a straw man. Because we have medicare and welfare my refusal to wear a seatbelt and subsequent death might be a drain on society in the form of higher taxes and increased medicare costs. If the government was not in the health insurance business, the charity business, then my stupidity would not be a burden on the general taxpayer.
Let is go a little further. The founders envisioned a government with limited powers. This is clear from a reading of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. In fact, the Constitution spells out specifically what powers the Federal Government has. It is a limiting, rather than empowering document. A cursory study of history would tell you Jefferson is spinning in his grave at the thought of what the Democratic Party stands for today. If you doubt that statement read some history and Jefferson's own words.
That said, those of you who disagree with me on the role of Government might argue that times have changed and whether we think the Government should be involved in the pension, welfare, and health insurance fields, it is, so we have to move forward. OK, then where do we stop? Every action has an effect on another in this case. You argue the society costs of my failure to wear a seatbelt are too high, so to protect us all, I m mandated to protect myself. The same argument is used on smoking bans. Now we see the Government telling us what kinds of cooking oil we can use and french fries will never taste the same. New York is considering telling us what kind of soda we should drink. Various individuals are targeting fast food restaurants claiming the food is not healthy enough. Will the Government have a right to mandate my weight, my Twizzlers consumption? By the same argument, why are Twinkies sold? Shouldn't Oreos and HoHos be kept under lock and key? Just as we have age-limits on cigarettes, should the government use a body fat index to determine our fitness to eat a rasher of bacon?
Should we face mandatory exercise? Some of you might argue in the affirmative. That the fat people and welfare queens are driving health costs to levels that we can no longer afford. The long-term costs of treating cancer patients who smoked their life away is a burden society should not have to accept. You will argue the Government has a role in protecting society as a whole from our individual poor choices.
Be careful for what you wish. Studies show that children do better in school, and live healthier lives when raised in two-parent households. Drop-out rates and college graduation rates are better in the traditional family structure. Studies have also shown that families who go to Church or Synagogue every week have lower divorce rates and are less likely to become single parents. Students who complete high school have a significantly less chance of being on welfare. College graduates are likely to earn more money in their lifetime than a high-school drop out. Should we mandate no divorce? Should we force people to go to church every Sunday?
Medical studies have demonstrated that a glass of wine everyday reduces heart disease. Should you be required by law to toss down a glass of Pinot Noir with dinner? How about we go a step further? Cities and towns and States with less restrictions on gun ownership have lower crime rates. Should you be required to own a gun?
You see, legislating for the better good of society is a slippery slope. If passing a law requiring me to wear a seatbelt helps promote the general welfare, is not a law legislating morality also necessary for the common good?
I am no anarchist or Big L Libertarian. I believe in reasonable restrictions. I believe we need some laws to protect society as a whole. I do believe that when we start legislating individual actions and take away individual responsibilities, we are giving the State too much power. How far are we then from the Government telling us how many kids we can have, what job we do, what God to worship, how to vote? It is our individual responsibility to fight tyranny in every form, no matter how small the act. We owe that to the men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor more than 230 years ago.
