There are studies indicating that seatbelt laws alter driving behavior, resulting in more reckless driving. Statistics show that in places with seatbelt laws (and high compliance), there are more traffic accidents and higher rates of fatality for drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
bit (DOT) ly/apBmkx
bit (DOT) ly/cpImDB
bit (DOT) ly/ayptaC
There is a similar effect with traffic lights and signs.
bit (DOT) ly/vjmVd
Relying on state regulations undermines decision-making.
omg... unsubscribe. your failure to wear a seat belt affects others. ill let you think about how. your atheist and crationist stuff is cool, but i cant handle your crackpot libertarian bullshit. gl.
Too many resources going to help people that would only have minor injuries had they worn a seat belt? It started w/ kids, then any minor in a vehicle, now it's everyone. For the record, I also always wear a seat belt, after (what should have been) a minor accident.
Tax livestock? Nah bro, it's something called compassion. Besides, seat belt laws make sense with almost every philosophy other than anarchism. For fiscal conservatives, it keeps people alive to up consumption, while decreasing funeral costs. For liberals, and those in favor of larger government, it allows you to keep people who are too stupid to protect themselves alive, by threatening their income.
Bottom line, most people are too stupid to wear seatbelts unless you force them too.
@FearsEdge I'm a staunch old-school liberal. I don't agree with everything the government does, particularly under the administration of big government republicans, who seek to spend without taxation. But the fundamental purpose of a government is to protect it's people. If this requires laws to give people incentive to protect their lives, so be it. I agree that you should have a right to die, but not the right to die accidentally when it's easily preventable.
You should have the right to die however. You are not justified in bullying someone else into accepting less risk to themselves. I'm sorry, but that is bullshit. I am an adult. I resent the fact that people think they need to be my nanny, on my dime, against my will. If I wanted a nanny, I would find one I trust.
@FearsEdge I'm all for a person's right to choose euthanasia, but this entirely different. This law wasn't instituted as an elusive method to take away the rights of others, it was introduced as a method to save lives. It's sad that people care more about tickets than their lives to begin with. I'm sorry, but I can't find understand opposition to seat belt laws as another other than, as the commercial itself puts it, a "No one tells me what to do." ideology.
I don't care what the stated intentions are, the result is a nanny that can't be told to go away. The result is adults being treated like children. The result is you being bullied into conforming. The result is extorted money going to fund the enforcement of a law that does nothing but rob people who do not conform to the state's idea of what is safe. "I don't like being told what to do" is a perfectly reasonable response to someone who decides to be your nanny against your will.
And believe it or not, in a world where the vast majority of people drive multi-ton death machines, wearing a seatbelt IS beneficial to society. Because it does save lives. Lives that are productive. Sorry if you don't like it. And I know you hate, and think this argument is dumb, but you CAN leave. You CAN choose to not obey. live in the mountains. Leave the nation that is using this land and creating this society. But if you want to stay, then stay.
I never said, nor implied that seat belts are not beneficial. You also act as if everyone is entitled to drive the multi-ton death machines, as if you have some right to it. You don't. Every time someone gets in a car, the risk of them dying increases, this is a plain fact. If they don't like it, they don't have to drive.
And people also CAN leave the the fuck alone when I am not hurting them, and that concept doesn't just apply to removing myself from society(society =/= the state)
Yes it's your choice to wear a seatbelt. Then your choice is adopted by your child. And it's his choice to not wear a seatbelt. Then it is adopted by your friends. ANd it's his choice to not wear a seatbelt.
You know, I understand your stance on statism, but why do you reject the social contract so unabashedly? We ARE trying to form a society here. The rules evoled from our interaction with each other of how we thought the society was best run.
Because the social contract is bullshit, that's why. Did you ever sign it? Did anyone? Nope. You cannot assume that someone agree to a bunch of arbitrary bullshit because they happen to be born in an area arbitrarily claimed by an extortion racket(the state).
The rules imposed by a state are not emergent, they are arbitrary by their very nature.
@FearsEdge I signed it when I agreed to pay my taxes and gain the benefits of them. I signed it when I chose to obey the law so the law could protect me. I did actually agree to the social contract by living in this society.
Assuming that is true, the state would have to uphold their side of the contract, otherwise it's meaningless. The state does not abide by the rules of the constitution, and it has not for at least 150 years, so the contract even if it existed in the first place is null and void now.
But it's bullshit anyway, because I am born into a society, I have agreed to be a slave to it? That's complete nonsense. Watch my video "Taxes and Original Sin" for more on this.
@FearsEdge I never said you assume somebody agreed to it because they happened to be born in an area using them. I do however assume if you want to use the roads, then obey the laws that go with them. If you want to live in THIS society, then obey the laws OF this society. That isn't hard, is it? What do you want, to be an angsty rebellious teen raging against the man while still living under its protection?
You implied it. Since the state has a violent monopolistic control over certain basic services like roads, somehow it's legitimate for me to be robbed by the state to pay for those services? That's a pretty convenient for the state if people are tricked this way.
Society =/= the state. Society is emergent from free human interaction. I never said anything about not wanting to be in society. I advocate a stateless society where there is no special group that's above their own rules
@FearsEdge But what exactly do you mean by arbitrary? To use that word it implies random. As if the laws could have just as easily been something else. Which is somewhat true, they could have been different, but the laws are formed out of necessity and experience in what is most beneficial. They are in actuality not in any way arbitrary.
Laws are not formed by necessity, that's ridiculous. Some things that are necessary have laws that affect them, but laws are determined by a group of people deciding what rules to right down. It is subject to their whim. If you want to go with the fallacy of representative government, and that it is a reflection of what the majority wants, it is still arbitrary since it is based on the subjective wants of the majority.
@FearsEdge Laws are formed oout of societal necessity. What the population wants are what forms the laws. Look at how our laws are formed, the entire history of them. They are reactionary. When something happens that people don't think should, a law is formed to prevent it.
I'm not talking about some objective universal necessity, but a societal necessity.
But how would these laws be able to be enforced against the few people who choose to disobey? The State.
@FearsEdge "If every man was an angel we would have no need for government."
I assume you are advocating some sort of anarchism with free enterprise, libertarian negative freedom, and the lack of coercion. But I've never believed that anarchism could ever work. A form of government, people ruling over others formed naturally out of human interaction. Some people are weak, some are strong, some are leaders, and some are followers. We do actually need a ruling body to form a healthy society.
@Proletariat12 'Some people are weak, some are strong...We NEED a ruling body' sounds like classism and elitism which sounds very funny coming from a guy with Proletariat as a handle.
@FearsEdge The state is needed regardless of the people who are in charge that abuse it. That's a problem that needs to be fixed, but abolishing any form of government is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
show me any society ever that has successfully existed without a state power. Without force of coercion to keep those in line that don't want to obey. Like I said, it has formed naturally out of human interaction. We create this.
This is where you are very wrong. States are a barbaric left over from the time where religion was the way to control people. This idea you had that people got together and all collectively consented to from the state because of necessity just did not happen.
If what I say is not true, point out when all the people of an arbitrary geographic area came together and formed the state to take care of some necessity.
@Proletariat12, Medieval Iceland prior to fourteenth century Medieval Ireland surety system prior to British invasion Merchant law Anglo-Saxon tithing system in England before Norman conquest Kapauku Papuans of West New Guinea Early tribal Germanic law Comanche law Yurok law of Northern California Ifuago law of Northern Luzon There are many examples of stateless societies throughout history. A coercive monopoly does not serve consumers well. There's no reason we should depend on one.
Fines and the nanny state are getting worse everywhere, here in Oregon you can get a $350 fine if you don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. I seriously don't get how a police officer can possibly think that they are doing "The Right Thing" when they take what is for a lot of people a weeks wage after taxes, for something as silly as that.
@FearsEdge Guess it matches the video pretty nicely then, as I'm not sure you were fully coherent when you made it. This vid makes you look so irrationally paranoid to the point that you should probably be on a street corner somewhere holding a cardboard sign declaring 'The End Is Nigh!'
Please explain to me exactly HOW one is supposed to have a rational discussion with someone spouting paranoid ramblings?
Shanedk is a libertarian one could possibly have a rational discussion with. You, on the other hand, in this video in particular, evoke the opinion that your natural habitat should be conspiracy theorist websites.
By the way, if you knew anything about me, you would know I probably have a very similar opinion of conspiracy theorists to you. But why listen to what someone thinks when you can just make up what you want and go about insulting them based on your snap judgments of a 90 second rant.
this is so childish i used to feel like that in middle school but what happens if some asshole who doesn't want to wear seat belts in his car goes into a permanent vegetative state who has to take care of him if he had no insurance and who's tax dollars goes toward that
No one. No one has to take care of him. He didn't wear a seat belt, and he suffered the consequences. If someone wants to take care of him, that's there business. Your poor choices in life do not create obligations for others to take care of you.
No, but I don't support medicaid, so it's irrelevant. I don't support extortion to pay for anything. If people are concerned with that persons welfare, they can cut out the middle man that takes most of the money and just help people in need.
what middle man, and it's not like they're taking the money and shoving it in their pockets and getting rich it's called over head. but YOU CAN'T SAY NO BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAPPEN LIKE IT OR NOT he would be taken care of for the rest of his natural life on tax payer money so we do have the right to force your ass to wear you seat belt because it affects us
How much do government workers make? Do you have any idea the growing wage disparity between the public and private sectors? Government workers get better pay and benefits and work less hours, average.
Because other people take it upon themselves to be everyone's nanny and extort people to fund it, they get to put restrictions on people risking themselves? That's a nice system we have. I do not recognize the legitimacy of that whatsoever, so it doesn't going to work as an argument.
"Government workers get better pay and benefits and work less hours, average" so because target corporation and private sector in general are to cheap to pay their workers more and give them better benefits... the rest of your argument amounts to paranoia and big bad government, im tired of this conversation and will end with
if that's how you feel STOP BITCHING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
Except that the state does not have any money to hire anyone. They extort the money to hire people at higher wages with better benefits than most people who they extorted from. That's what I call being an overpaid middle man, which is exactly why I brought it up.
I AM doing something about it. If people are convinced that the state is not a legitimate institution, then the problem will be mostly solved.
I dont particularly care for nanny state laws. If they want to make laws saying your KIDS have to wear seat belts, I can live with that but I agree with you on this.
But also i think saying you need to buckle up and giving you a small fine for not doing so is a minimal intrusion at BEST. Also i wonder how much money they actually make for it. In addition the fact that you were unbuckled could mean higher premiums for every one. I imagine the injuries sustained from being buckled is DWARFED by that of being not buckled accidents.
You are probably right, but that is the point with entering into a risk pool(insurance), if everyone else in the pool is acting riskily, you still have to pay. The difference is that you voluntarily enter into that risk pool in private business.
@rarrmonkey Just because a government monopolizes a certain industry or a job, does not mean that those are impossible on a free market.
After all these services are provided by the state because people demand these services, just like on a free market, except the state does not need to worry about competition as it helps cartels to form, through regulations, and it also makes it illegal to compete with it.
what reason do you have for presupposing that state agents have some unique capacity to ensure security or safety?
the existence of the state shafts the worker in different ways. corporations (state created fictional legal entities) gain in bargaining power through all the regulations which make competition much more difficult. all of the corporate welfare combined w/all the forced barriers to entry actually deregulates/dampens the natural "regulation" of voluntary interaction.
We need a theme park for statists, where they can bully each other, and vote for people to have power over them, and do all kinds of stupid shit like FIAT currency, and creating laws against completely benign and victimless activities.
Then the rest of us who don't like coercive monopolies "saving" us from ourselves won't be bothered by it.
The police asking you to wear a seatbelt is not only so that your life would be protected but also so that the society wouldn't have to clear up the mess you would make with your traffic accident.
if it were a private road "society" wouldn't have to do anything. just think of the endless possibilities of how such a problem could be solved. but no, we have to always go with the one stop gunvernment solution: force everything to be done one way and extort everyone to pay for it.
Yes, everyone knows that the most messes in traffic accidents are caused by peoples bodies, not glass and metal and plastic flying everywhere.
The state is just trying to keep the mess at a minimum, that's excellent reasoning to empower them to inflict punishment on me for not wearing a strap. When you find the angels that can plan society out and always know what's best and are pure and uncorruptable, you let me know.
« The state is just trying to keep the mess at a minimum »
In your proposed system, who would clean up the mess? If a private company, wouldn't they encourage people to *not* wear seat belts so that they can gain from people's eventual deaths? If the residents, unpaid, wouldn't they try to take some preventive measures just like the sate, so that they can minimize the occurrences of such mess and would have more time to sell their limited labour for real paid jobs?
Whoever wanted to would pay someone to clean up the mess. Is this really that hard to understand? Do I have to lead you by the hand to every simple conclusion, or what?
« Whoever wanted to would pay someone to clean up the mess. Is this really that hard to understand? »
I think I understood what you were saying. But I don't think you understood my point. If those cleaners are to be paid and motivated by the free market, it would be in their interest to encourage people not to wear seat belts, wouldn't it?
Maybe it would, but as I said to someone (may have been you) earlier, most of the mess from a collision is not going to be from a person, the cars that hit each other would create vastly more mess. It is in the security companies interest that you don't feel safe, it's in the interest of the state that you fear other states so you feel like you need them. Someone is usually going to gain from a bad situation, that's just life.
It would be OK if they all start passing laws like - if there is ever a terrorist attack in this state all legislators will forfeit their personal wealth to the citizens they failed to protect.
If you want to pass laws that infringe on personal rights you must accept a responsibility to those people.
You still CAN choose to not wear seatbelt, with certain forceful consequences (including arrest). Just like you can choose to not eat, with certain forceful consequences (including starvation). Your existence is biologically conditioned as well as sociologically conditioned. As society increases in its complexity, its self-regulating system naturally expands, and people start to fail to see the immediacy of their relationship with the system, lapsing into inadequate individualism.
No shit. I know that the seat belt does not magically attach itself, or whatever. Obviously some people are inflicting punishment on other for them not obeying the state, that is the whole point of the video.
Anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is a clown - if you're not wearing a seatbelt and there are other people in the car with you, and you have a crash, your flailing idiot rag-doll corpse could cause death or injury to others who aren't as retarded and selfish as you.
If you want to get rid of seatbelt laws we should get rid of driving licences too - let unskilled drivers bomb aroud at 100 miles an hour, blind-drunk and texting on their phones - Viva la Revolucion! ;)
@hadr0n But no government is good at keeping track of such unsafe behaviors, so that's pretty much my point. You can wait for a bureaucrat to post your ticket or you could have something else used to measure the odds of your safety or lack thereof. *shrugs*
@junior00bacon00chee NO! Without the government everyone would be free to live forever and shit rainbows because the free market would sort everything out! ;)
Go ahead. Don't wear your seatbelt - make a statement. Pay the fines, wheel the wheelchair. Some people have to be protected from themselves because unlike you, they don't wear their seatbelt because they're too bloody lazy to put it on.
talk about an unwarranted sense of superiority. what is it with all of the irrational statheists running around saying they are for science and reason?
i think seat belts are the least of our worries. how many tens of thousands of people die each year on the government run roads? the problem is state monopolization, not people who are "too bloody lazy."
i think you are too bloody lazy to learn about the rational economic theory.
@junior00bacon00chee State Monopolization? How does that contribute to whether or not people wear their seat-belts? I don't like in America so maybe there's something here that I'm missing. You can't put enconomic policies in place that encourage people to wear seatbelts, unless you give out some sort of reward to people who do wear them. And perhaps 000s more people would have died on your government run roads if they hadn't been wearing seatbelts?
i'm referring to how the roads are run in general, not specifically just the seat belt thing, but i can see how you'd get that from way i made the sentence.
and i have a hard time believing that the seat belt law made much of a difference in terms of who wears their seat belt and who doesn't. really though we can never know. i am against the extortion used to pay for the enforcement of this petty law, however, as well as state ownership of the roads.
@junior00bacon00chee You might not be able to measure how the law affects seatbelt use, but you can measure the results of crash tests in which the dummies do and don't wear sealt-belts.
sure, you can measure all kinds of things, but economic science does not involve measurement. values, preferences, choices, etc., cannot be measured. increases or decreases in happiness cannot be measured. the question is what could people have otherwise done with that money if they weren't forced to pay for the cops?
and i wonder what other safety devices would be developed if it weren't for the state's "seat belt chauvinism." also, methinks the roads in general would be far safer.
@junior00bacon00chee My daughter works for a market research company: their reason for being is to measure people's attitudes, values, preferences, choices and the changes in them. How does having seatbelt laws give any state the excuse to weasel out of improving roads. I know some road laws appear to be revenue raising only, and perhaps they are, but somehow I think the cops would still get their funding even if seatbelt wearing was voluntary.
you can't measure an increase or decrease in satisfaction. would you deny this? and how could you possibly "measure" choices or preferences? by asking people questions? that is just a garble of statistical data.
monopolization increases the weasel factor, no? they are not nearly as disciplined by profit and loss criteria, and thus are able to get away with lower quality. why should extortionists provide any more "service" than is necessary to keep you believing in their story?
@junior00bacon00chee I deny it - how about measuring brain waves and the responses to different stimuli? How do you find out what people are thinking other than by observing and asking questions? Governments are partially motivated by profit and loss. Huge deficits don't win elections, for example.
and what could that possibly tell you? experience is private. you can "measure" from the outside all you want, but there is no way to know for sure what "measurements" of "brain waves" will mean wrt to a person's conscious experience.
"not nearly as disciplined by profit and loss"
did i ever deny that there isn't some degree of profit and loss? no. even states have a credit rating. but petitions and letters and votes are just plain retarded gimmicks which hugely disempower you.
@FearsEdge I'm actually for the legalisation of drugs, because legalisation would make them safer, undermine the 'free-enterprise' of organised crime, and address inconsistencies in what is legal, what isn't and why. I don't think legalising drugs would make drug abuse worse, but I think legalising no-seatbelts would make the results of most traffic accidents much worse.
I'd ask you to back that up some how. Why would most accidents be worse? You really think most people wear them because they are told to by the state?
@FearsEdge I don't think I phrased that properly... what I meant was, if no-seatbelts was legal, the road death-toll would be higher. I do think less people would wear them if it wasn't illegal. The fact they must be worn encourages us all to remember to put them on. Wearing them is almost automatic, because of the laws. Obviously not all laws are good, and some road laws do seem to be blatant revenue-raising only. I just think the seatbelt one is a good one.
First of all, I dispute the idea that it is automatic to put it on because of the law. I put mine on because it's a good idea, and I do it habitually because that's what I am used to doing
Also, assuming you are right about the higher death tolls, I would ask you justify forcing someone to wear a seat belt because of that. If someone knows what a seat belt does, and does not wear it anyway, that is on them. More careless people dying when they took too much risk. That's my point
@F'sE: What about the people who may not be driving badly but are not wearing a SB and get hit by a careless driver? What about the fact that all people have a right to an ambulance and triage whether they wore a belt or not? (I am glad about that). SB law is a form of prevention of $s being spent on hospital care/rehabilitation/disability. While you and I put on our belts automatically, perhaps some people don't and the ads remind them. The fine is an extra incentive to wear them.
@FearsEdge Probably quite a lot, because most of us think we won't get killed in a traffic accident. We're far more scared of getting pulled over by the cops. Human nature... the 'it won't happen to us' mentality.
@FearsEdge And if the cop's presence reminds you to put your belt on - YAY problem solved. We have speed cameras here and their locations are given out on the local radio stations - police publicise them. Reminds people to slow down. Same with red-light cameras. Fair warning is given.
How is someone waiting until they see a cop to put on the belt solving the "problem"?
So slowing down at just those places they put the cameras is the goal? This all seems rather silly and pointless to me. Well, the point would be reminding you to OBEY, of course.
@FearsEdge Okay - no it isn't. How about when your parent told you not to stick a knife in an electricity outlet? Or when there's a 'no diving' sign at the shallow end of the pool?
Once again, that is good advice. I certainly advocate teaching children basic safety tips, as well as signs advising against risky behavior. I AM against the state deciding that I am a child that needs to be robbed and intimidated into not risking my own life, which is my choice. I am against people using the state(or any coercive measures) to bully people.
@FearsEdge If you could think of another way of emphasising the importance of wearing seatbelts to the public, maybe your way would work better. Usually such campaigns involve pictures of horrible accidents and people don't like that either. I think these days a huge majority of people wear seatbelts whereas 50 years ago most cars didn't even have them. But then there was far less traffic (and powerful vehicles) on the roads. Would you make it mandatory for all cars to have seatbelts?
Nope. Sure wouldn't. If someone does not want a car with seatbelts, that's their choice. It would be a dumb choice, in my opinion, but it's their's to make.
@FearsEdge Assuming SB wearing became voluntary, would you make it mandatory for manufacturers to make all cars with seatbelts? If no, what other safety features would you make optional ?
@FearsEdge So seatbelts wouldn't be mandatory in new cars? People have the right to take risks, but to what extent do they have the right to expect others to cover the cost of their risk--taking going wrong? How would making SBs voluntary affect the life insurance industry? SB manufacturers? People worrying about their loved ones?
I don't know how it would affect those things necessarily, that is not my area of expertise.
As for others absorbing the cost of risks, that's just part of life, I hate to break it to you. Making a rule against something does not make it go away. You cannot legislate risk away. Again, I ask how far do you want to take this giving the power to the state to assess risk and coerce us into conforming to their idea of safety?
@FearsEdgePeople will get hurt and killed sometimes despite all the safe-guards whether they be compulsory or voluntary. But imagine this: you're a doctor in triage. You can only deal with saving one patient's life at a time. Identical twins come in. Every aspect of their lives is the same but they've both been injured separately. One twin was in a car accident, wasn't wearing his seat belt, and because of that is grievously injured; the other was struck by lightning - a random event.
@AuntieDiluvian You have to choose which twin to save. Both will die unless they are treated first. Which one do you choose to save and why? And if you choose the one who was struck by lightning, aren't you punishing the other one for not wearing his seat belt?
I would choose to save whichever one had a higher chance of surviving, which is what they are supposed to do. That being equal, I would save the one that wasn't responsible for his injuries. and yes, I guess it would be punishing that person, do you have an alternative? That is a hard situation that there is no right answer to. This concept certainly doesn't do anything to convince me that mandatory seat belt laws are justified.
By the way, statism does not get to be right by default. If I can't come up with another way of emphasizing seat belt use, it does not make the violent, statist way the right one. But I imagine a company offering a seat belt as a feature and explaining it's use would be easy enough to do, but you don't even have to do that. Cars come standard with seat belts now.
If the goal of these laws is to prevent money being spent for health care and what not, how much more power do you want to give the state to dictate your behavior? Diet? Mandatory work-outs? Do you really think it's the domain of this group of popularity contest winners and bureaucrats to dictate our behavior so it can save us money? Why don't we just fire those sumbitches and save money that way, if it's all about saving money? How wasteful is the state?
@FearsEdge I absolutely get what you're saying... while smoking and alcoholism are legal and junk food and obesity are legal it seems wrong that no SBs is illegal. I see that, and I wouldn't want the aforementioned things to be illegal. But I do believe that ads on the dangers of those things are valid, as are programs to encourage people to live healthier lifestyles. Those things can be remedied over time, but a head-injury usually can't be remedied and is more immediate.
Orgainzed crime is NOT "free-enterprise", and it thrives mostly due to idiotic state-enforced prohobitions. But I think you already know that and would agree.
However, concerning the seatbelts, while it is indeed a relatively minor offense to liberty, why should the government be a nanny on whether people get fucked up over personal bad choices? I can understand using force to keep drunk drivers off the road,because they endanger others, but why should they force the seatbelts?
not wearing a seat belt also puts other peoples lives in danger, it's been a law here for the last 20 years, if you crash at high speed and you flailing body flys out of the seat and hits another person in the car it's likely to kill them!
I've already answered this a few times, and now it's in the description.
Should we make it illegal t have anything unrestrained in the car? How car do you want to take this? Isn't it really risky to be riding around in a car at all? How many people die in car wrecks every year WITH seat belts?
@FearsEdge exactly, so why increase the risk any further by being a careless asshole!? I'm one of the most anti-state people you'll ever meet, but I actually think this one has some sense to it!
I never said anyone should be a careless asshole. I said I wear my seat belt. For fuck sake, I am not advocating that you not wear a seat belt! I am against the state bullying someone into protecting themselves.
@FearsEdge I didn't say otherwise, I just believe there is alot of stupid people out there, and something like this is probably for their own good! this is something that should be done out of commen sense anyway, but for those that lack the commen sense to do it need to be told that there are consequences to their stupidity before it's too late and they actually hurt someone!
Sure, need to be told. Whatever. Tell them. I wear my seat belt because it's a good idea. You don't have to bully people into doing something that makes sense. For the people who don't want to do it, they won't do it anyway. You can't legislate good behavior. It's just a way to justify charging you when you do not OBEY.
@FearsEdge i think that's true to some degree but there will be plenty of people that do take note, like parents being more careful; to tell their kids to put it on, (i've seen this happen) the law has made them think i dont want to risk getting a fine so i'll make sure everyone in my car has their seat belt on. after almost 2 decades of that law being here i have seen a big improvement in how much people wear seat belts!
I always tell people I am in a car with to wear a seatbelt. Why do I do it? Because I care about that person and I don't want them to be hurt for no good reason. Now do I advocate giving someone the power to save me and everyone else from ourselves, and bully and coerce us into conforming? Absolutely not.
@FearsEdge but it can only be considered bullying if it's unfair, which it's not, say you were carrying a loaded uzi around in a crowded shopping mall, it's your human right to ignore safety and do it if you want to, but would the police not have the right to disarm you and arrest you if they thought you were being a threat to the safety of others? they can't predict what your intentions were so the only sensible thing to do is punish you for being a possible risk to others!
No, it wasn't. It sounded to me like you are okay with the state imposing arbitrary restrictions on people. Who decides if it's fair? Since this system is majority rules, if the majority decides what it wants, and the minority doesn't like it they are bullied into paying for it and going along with it. That is the whole point. The bully decides what is fair.
@FearsEdge well you yourself said you tell people in your car to belt up because you care about them and dont want them to get hurt, so isn't something fair when it's to protect the people you care about? from your arguments point of view, why can't i drink and drive? it's my car i can do what i like! the majority shouldn't be able to decide for me!
I don't see any crime inherent in drinking and driving. Running into other people is a crime. I certainly would never advocate drinking and driving, but I am not going to support a rule that punishes someone for being risky, but not actually hurting anyone. If they hurt someone, then it's a crime. We should always be be very frank about engaging in dangerous behavior, and as friends or citizens or whatever you can do something about it.
@FearsEdge well that's just silly, if one of your family members was killed by a drunk driver i'm sure you would change your mind on that policy very quickly!! the fact is that law has been here for many years and i've been a witness to improvements in safety behaviour, everyone had the same reaction as you when it first came out, but now it's actually seen as quite sensible.
No, it's not silly. I am anti-statist, remember? I am very serious about people taking responsibility for their choices. I won't go into detail for their sake, but I have someone in my family who is very close to me who almost died and almost killed some people drinking and driving. It's something I take very seriously. However, I am not about creating power structures to bully people around. I absolutely believe in people suffering the consequences of the damage they do.
@FearsEdge well okay, that's understandable, but there are plenty of heartless bastards out there that if they killed someone drink driving it wouldn't bother them morally, they wouldn't suffer any consequences they would just be. "oh well! sorry" it ends up becoming a case of where do you draw the line, the sad reality of it is the careless nature of the retarded few make these kind of law nessacary so there isn't complete chaos,.
@FearsEdge 2. if there was no legal consequences for dangerous behaviour i bet there is at least 1% of the population that would be totally uncontrollable. that 1% could do alot of damage. then your anti statism just becomes purist anarchy.
That sounds like it was totally pulled out of your ass.
I am against dangerous behavior that actually hurts people, I am not about preemptively targeting people who are not actually hurting anyone for state imposed behavior modification.
By the way, I am not speaking from a statist point of view, meaning that when I say I wouldn't make it illegal, it means I wouldn't advocate my own subjective view, that it is bad, as a set in stone rule. Whatever the intersubjective consensus on drinking and driving would determine what, if anything people would do about it. I would of course support people being held liable for the damage they actually do, not penalizing people before they have hurt anyone.
@junior00bacon00chee you pulled that one straight our of your ass, yes? I know cops are dumb but i've never heard of them going in to hot pursuit over a seat belt! and if they do then there is something seriously (insanly) wrong with the people upholding the law and not the law itself. if american cops can't make the judgement call on weather its worth risking their lives and the lives of others over such minor violations they shouldn't be in that job!
just watch any cop show and watch for the reasons that they chase people. all it takes is for you to speed off.
"american cops can't make the judgement call"
state agents don't make judgments calls. they have already surrendered every ounce of common sense in order to blindly do whatever they are told to do. if it's "the law" then you can be sure they'll try to enforce regardless.
that's why 5 year olds are getting their lemonade stands shut down. no permit (and no common sense).
@junior00bacon00chee well that just proves my point that its the people upholding the law not the law itself, which unfortunatley has no easy solution, until there is a complete government collapse and a public revolution your not gonna get a better law enforcment service!
the problem is the extortion funded monopolization of the roads, security, and the law. and i agree that we shouldn't expect any improvement in "services" any time soon, they have no incentive to do so when their paychecks come in almost no matter what!
@FearsEdge fair comment, but your vision of a tax free society would simply be one of the rich controlling everything and the poor would likely starve. and the seat belt issue would be irrelevant as there wouldn't be any roads to drive on in a libertarian country!
You assert all kinds of things that you didn't back up(because you can't). You are aware there are private roads now, right? That is one of the biggest jokes in the anti-statist community. "Who will build the roads?!"
As for the rich controlling everything, who do you think controls everything now? Where do the millions of dollars that go to a single ad campaign for a senate seat(for example) that pays $500,000 a year come from? Who has all the lobbyists?
@FearsEdge well that's fair comment to some extent, but when you vote it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, we are all equal. Who would try to protect the poor, the weak in your society? we would just have anarchy. YOU want change so YOU prove that I'm wrong. some elected government is essential and I think you know it.
Voting is a trick, democracy is a brutal and barbaric institution, and representative government is a complete farce. Some form of governance is necessary, I am simply advocating for a stateless society, which means that there wouldn't be this one entity exempt from the rules everyone else follows.
jesus christ, that's some textbook statheism right there!
"we need to give random people the power to legally extort the population at large and counterfeit trillions of dollars or else there will be a giant wealth disparity!"
@junior00bacon00chee random??? hardly! and democracy does work well where it is genuine...eg switzerland etc. as for ignorance...do you know me??? no you don't so grow up and stop being a prick.
as for switzerland....the question is whether or not, all things being equal, a society would be better off with or without a state. so it's pointless to point out switzerland as some kind of example, how do you know they wouldn't be better off w/o a state?
and how could you ever make such a statement when you don't understand the mechanism behind cooperation and prosperity?
@junior00bacon00chee ok look you have to prove your point not me. I contend that having a democratically elected government here in the uk is better than anything you have to offer. you may be a nihilist but most of us are not.
Aren't cops allowed to bust in your house now if they hear a suspicious sound?
spinalglacier 4 months ago
@twindwick
I can see it as possible, I just don't accept that as the most likely explanation. You saying "men in caves" to make it sound silly changes nothing.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Those milk cups had over 27 grams of sugar. I remembered them from burning man
anzwertree 1 year ago
Needs more Andre the Giant. Post a new video!
AnonSubHuman 1 year ago
Instead of Click it or Ticket they should be more truthful and said:
OBEY or SUFFER.
DKshad0w 1 year ago
There are studies indicating that seatbelt laws alter driving behavior, resulting in more reckless driving. Statistics show that in places with seatbelt laws (and high compliance), there are more traffic accidents and higher rates of fatality for drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists.
bit (DOT) ly/apBmkx
bit (DOT) ly/cpImDB
bit (DOT) ly/ayptaC
There is a similar effect with traffic lights and signs.
bit (DOT) ly/vjmVd
Relying on state regulations undermines decision-making.
CernelJoson 1 year ago
omg... unsubscribe. your failure to wear a seat belt affects others. ill let you think about how. your atheist and crationist stuff is cool, but i cant handle your crackpot libertarian bullshit. gl.
obliviousaa 1 year ago
@obliviousaa
You'll be missed.
Oh, and did you see the part in the video where I said I always wear a seat belt?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Too many resources going to help people that would only have minor injuries had they worn a seat belt? It started w/ kids, then any minor in a vehicle, now it's everyone. For the record, I also always wear a seat belt, after (what should have been) a minor accident.
nyeoki 1 year ago
Tax livestock? Nah bro, it's something called compassion. Besides, seat belt laws make sense with almost every philosophy other than anarchism. For fiscal conservatives, it keeps people alive to up consumption, while decreasing funeral costs. For liberals, and those in favor of larger government, it allows you to keep people who are too stupid to protect themselves alive, by threatening their income.
Bottom line, most people are too stupid to wear seatbelts unless you force them too.
JEMdev 1 year ago
@JEMdev
Which is no justification for forcing them to.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I'm a staunch old-school liberal. I don't agree with everything the government does, particularly under the administration of big government republicans, who seek to spend without taxation. But the fundamental purpose of a government is to protect it's people. If this requires laws to give people incentive to protect their lives, so be it. I agree that you should have a right to die, but not the right to die accidentally when it's easily preventable.
JEMdev 1 year ago
@JEMdev
You should have the right to die however. You are not justified in bullying someone else into accepting less risk to themselves. I'm sorry, but that is bullshit. I am an adult. I resent the fact that people think they need to be my nanny, on my dime, against my will. If I wanted a nanny, I would find one I trust.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I'm all for a person's right to choose euthanasia, but this entirely different. This law wasn't instituted as an elusive method to take away the rights of others, it was introduced as a method to save lives. It's sad that people care more about tickets than their lives to begin with. I'm sorry, but I can't find understand opposition to seat belt laws as another other than, as the commercial itself puts it, a "No one tells me what to do." ideology.
JEMdev 1 year ago
@JEMdev
I don't care what the stated intentions are, the result is a nanny that can't be told to go away. The result is adults being treated like children. The result is you being bullied into conforming. The result is extorted money going to fund the enforcement of a law that does nothing but rob people who do not conform to the state's idea of what is safe. "I don't like being told what to do" is a perfectly reasonable response to someone who decides to be your nanny against your will.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
And believe it or not, in a world where the vast majority of people drive multi-ton death machines, wearing a seatbelt IS beneficial to society. Because it does save lives. Lives that are productive. Sorry if you don't like it. And I know you hate, and think this argument is dumb, but you CAN leave. You CAN choose to not obey. live in the mountains. Leave the nation that is using this land and creating this society. But if you want to stay, then stay.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Pro
I never said, nor implied that seat belts are not beneficial. You also act as if everyone is entitled to drive the multi-ton death machines, as if you have some right to it. You don't. Every time someone gets in a car, the risk of them dying increases, this is a plain fact. If they don't like it, they don't have to drive.
And people also CAN leave the the fuck alone when I am not hurting them, and that concept doesn't just apply to removing myself from society(society =/= the state)
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Yes it's your choice to wear a seatbelt. Then your choice is adopted by your child. And it's his choice to not wear a seatbelt. Then it is adopted by your friends. ANd it's his choice to not wear a seatbelt.
You know, I understand your stance on statism, but why do you reject the social contract so unabashedly? We ARE trying to form a society here. The rules evoled from our interaction with each other of how we thought the society was best run.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12
Because the social contract is bullshit, that's why. Did you ever sign it? Did anyone? Nope. You cannot assume that someone agree to a bunch of arbitrary bullshit because they happen to be born in an area arbitrarily claimed by an extortion racket(the state).
The rules imposed by a state are not emergent, they are arbitrary by their very nature.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I signed it when I agreed to pay my taxes and gain the benefits of them. I signed it when I chose to obey the law so the law could protect me. I did actually agree to the social contract by living in this society.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12
Assuming that is true, the state would have to uphold their side of the contract, otherwise it's meaningless. The state does not abide by the rules of the constitution, and it has not for at least 150 years, so the contract even if it existed in the first place is null and void now.
But it's bullshit anyway, because I am born into a society, I have agreed to be a slave to it? That's complete nonsense. Watch my video "Taxes and Original Sin" for more on this.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I never said you assume somebody agreed to it because they happened to be born in an area using them. I do however assume if you want to use the roads, then obey the laws that go with them. If you want to live in THIS society, then obey the laws OF this society. That isn't hard, is it? What do you want, to be an angsty rebellious teen raging against the man while still living under its protection?
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat
You implied it. Since the state has a violent monopolistic control over certain basic services like roads, somehow it's legitimate for me to be robbed by the state to pay for those services? That's a pretty convenient for the state if people are tricked this way.
Society =/= the state. Society is emergent from free human interaction. I never said anything about not wanting to be in society. I advocate a stateless society where there is no special group that's above their own rules
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge But what exactly do you mean by arbitrary? To use that word it implies random. As if the laws could have just as easily been something else. Which is somewhat true, they could have been different, but the laws are formed out of necessity and experience in what is most beneficial. They are in actuality not in any way arbitrary.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12
ar·bi·trar·y
–adjective
1.subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2.decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3.having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4.capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@Proletariat12
Laws are not formed by necessity, that's ridiculous. Some things that are necessary have laws that affect them, but laws are determined by a group of people deciding what rules to right down. It is subject to their whim. If you want to go with the fallacy of representative government, and that it is a reflection of what the majority wants, it is still arbitrary since it is based on the subjective wants of the majority.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
"what rules to right down."
WRITE down, that is.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Laws are formed oout of societal necessity. What the population wants are what forms the laws. Look at how our laws are formed, the entire history of them. They are reactionary. When something happens that people don't think should, a law is formed to prevent it.
I'm not talking about some objective universal necessity, but a societal necessity.
But how would these laws be able to be enforced against the few people who choose to disobey? The State.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@FearsEdge "If every man was an angel we would have no need for government."
I assume you are advocating some sort of anarchism with free enterprise, libertarian negative freedom, and the lack of coercion. But I've never believed that anarchism could ever work. A form of government, people ruling over others formed naturally out of human interaction. Some people are weak, some are strong, some are leaders, and some are followers. We do actually need a ruling body to form a healthy society.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12 'Some people are weak, some are strong...We NEED a ruling body' sounds like classism and elitism which sounds very funny coming from a guy with Proletariat as a handle.
AnonSubHuman 1 year ago
@FearsEdge The state is needed regardless of the people who are in charge that abuse it. That's a problem that needs to be fixed, but abolishing any form of government is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
show me any society ever that has successfully existed without a state power. Without force of coercion to keep those in line that don't want to obey. Like I said, it has formed naturally out of human interaction. We create this.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12
This is where you are very wrong. States are a barbaric left over from the time where religion was the way to control people. This idea you had that people got together and all collectively consented to from the state because of necessity just did not happen.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge If what you say is true, then it should be easy to point out societies that have formed without force of coercion to control.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12
If what I say is not true, point out when all the people of an arbitrary geographic area came together and formed the state to take care of some necessity.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
truthadvocate 1 year ago
Yeah, who gives a shit if lives will be saved, I don't want to mess up my clothes.
DarwinsChihuahua 1 year ago
@DarwinsChihuahua
If someones clothes are a higher priority than their safety, that's up to them. They are a fool, but it is their life to risk.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Fines and the nanny state are getting worse everywhere, here in Oregon you can get a $350 fine if you don't come to a complete stop at a stop sign. I seriously don't get how a police officer can possibly think that they are doing "The Right Thing" when they take what is for a lot of people a weeks wage after taxes, for something as silly as that.
priapus512 1 year ago
@priapus512
That's just it, it's a way to get more money out of you, and to remind you of who's thumb you are under.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Tinfoil hat much?
SquallAKALeon 1 year ago
@SquallAKALeon
That's not even a coherent sentence.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Guess it matches the video pretty nicely then, as I'm not sure you were fully coherent when you made it. This vid makes you look so irrationally paranoid to the point that you should probably be on a street corner somewhere holding a cardboard sign declaring 'The End Is Nigh!'
SquallAKALeon 1 year ago
@SquallAKALeon
When you are done just lobbing insults, and would actually like to discuss anything I said, let me know.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
Please explain to me exactly HOW one is supposed to have a rational discussion with someone spouting paranoid ramblings?
Shanedk is a libertarian one could possibly have a rational discussion with. You, on the other hand, in this video in particular, evoke the opinion that your natural habitat should be conspiracy theorist websites.
SquallAKALeon 1 year ago
@SquallAKALeon
So NOW are you done lobbing insults, or what?
By the way, if you knew anything about me, you would know I probably have a very similar opinion of conspiracy theorists to you. But why listen to what someone thinks when you can just make up what you want and go about insulting them based on your snap judgments of a 90 second rant.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
fear you need to do another blog tv
8XanarchistX8 1 year ago
this is so childish i used to feel like that in middle school but what happens if some asshole who doesn't want to wear seat belts in his car goes into a permanent vegetative state who has to take care of him if he had no insurance and who's tax dollars goes toward that
Leadman1989 1 year ago
@Leadman1989
No one. No one has to take care of him. He didn't wear a seat belt, and he suffered the consequences. If someone wants to take care of him, that's there business. Your poor choices in life do not create obligations for others to take care of you.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
so you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that he won't get medicaid to stay in a hospice? or some sort of government help?
Leadman1989 1 year ago
@Leadman1989
No, but I don't support medicaid, so it's irrelevant. I don't support extortion to pay for anything. If people are concerned with that persons welfare, they can cut out the middle man that takes most of the money and just help people in need.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
what middle man, and it's not like they're taking the money and shoving it in their pockets and getting rich it's called over head. but YOU CAN'T SAY NO BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAPPEN LIKE IT OR NOT he would be taken care of for the rest of his natural life on tax payer money so we do have the right to force your ass to wear you seat belt because it affects us
Leadman1989 1 year ago
@Leadman
How much do government workers make? Do you have any idea the growing wage disparity between the public and private sectors? Government workers get better pay and benefits and work less hours, average.
Because other people take it upon themselves to be everyone's nanny and extort people to fund it, they get to put restrictions on people risking themselves? That's a nice system we have. I do not recognize the legitimacy of that whatsoever, so it doesn't going to work as an argument.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
"Government workers get better pay and benefits and work less hours, average" so because target corporation and private sector in general are to cheap to pay their workers more and give them better benefits... the rest of your argument amounts to paranoia and big bad government, im tired of this conversation and will end with
if that's how you feel STOP BITCHING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT
Leadman1989 1 year ago
@Leadman1989
Except that the state does not have any money to hire anyone. They extort the money to hire people at higher wages with better benefits than most people who they extorted from. That's what I call being an overpaid middle man, which is exactly why I brought it up.
I AM doing something about it. If people are convinced that the state is not a legitimate institution, then the problem will be mostly solved.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
I dont particularly care for nanny state laws. If they want to make laws saying your KIDS have to wear seat belts, I can live with that but I agree with you on this.
jwhyte67 1 year ago
In addition to them having seatbelt laws for the reasons you stated, there are laws against suicide for those same reasons.
bfl3tcher 1 year ago
I agree.
crazypants88 1 year ago
It's the business of your insurance provider.
chupamiubre 1 year ago
@chupamiubre
Which once again would be MY business, since it's MY insurance.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
I don't think i said any thing to the contrary?
But also i think saying you need to buckle up and giving you a small fine for not doing so is a minimal intrusion at BEST. Also i wonder how much money they actually make for it. In addition the fact that you were unbuckled could mean higher premiums for every one. I imagine the injuries sustained from being buckled is DWARFED by that of being not buckled accidents.
chupamiubre 1 year ago
@chupamiubre
You are probably right, but that is the point with entering into a risk pool(insurance), if everyone else in the pool is acting riskily, you still have to pay. The difference is that you voluntarily enter into that risk pool in private business.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
OK so is all taxation the government stealing from you?
We need to make a theme park for libertarians, like Jurassic park.
No pesky police telling you what to do, no safety inspectors to regulate working conditions.
rarrmonkey 1 year ago
@rarrmonkey Just because a government monopolizes a certain industry or a job, does not mean that those are impossible on a free market.
After all these services are provided by the state because people demand these services, just like on a free market, except the state does not need to worry about competition as it helps cartels to form, through regulations, and it also makes it illegal to compete with it.
crazypants88 1 year ago
@rarrmonkey
what reason do you have for presupposing that state agents have some unique capacity to ensure security or safety?
the existence of the state shafts the worker in different ways. corporations (state created fictional legal entities) gain in bargaining power through all the regulations which make competition much more difficult. all of the corporate welfare combined w/all the forced barriers to entry actually deregulates/dampens the natural "regulation" of voluntary interaction.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@rarrmonkey
We need a theme park for statists, where they can bully each other, and vote for people to have power over them, and do all kinds of stupid shit like FIAT currency, and creating laws against completely benign and victimless activities.
Then the rest of us who don't like coercive monopolies "saving" us from ourselves won't be bothered by it.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
The police asking you to wear a seatbelt is not only so that your life would be protected but also so that the society wouldn't have to clear up the mess you would make with your traffic accident.
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
if it were a private road "society" wouldn't have to do anything. just think of the endless possibilities of how such a problem could be solved. but no, we have to always go with the one stop gunvernment solution: force everything to be done one way and extort everyone to pay for it.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@mirandansa
They don't ask, it's a demand backed up by force.
Yes, everyone knows that the most messes in traffic accidents are caused by peoples bodies, not glass and metal and plastic flying everywhere.
The state is just trying to keep the mess at a minimum, that's excellent reasoning to empower them to inflict punishment on me for not wearing a strap. When you find the angels that can plan society out and always know what's best and are pure and uncorruptable, you let me know.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
« The state is just trying to keep the mess at a minimum »
In your proposed system, who would clean up the mess? If a private company, wouldn't they encourage people to *not* wear seat belts so that they can gain from people's eventual deaths? If the residents, unpaid, wouldn't they try to take some preventive measures just like the sate, so that they can minimize the occurrences of such mess and would have more time to sell their limited labour for real paid jobs?
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
Whoever wanted to would pay someone to clean up the mess. Is this really that hard to understand? Do I have to lead you by the hand to every simple conclusion, or what?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
« Whoever wanted to would pay someone to clean up the mess. Is this really that hard to understand? »
I think I understood what you were saying. But I don't think you understood my point. If those cleaners are to be paid and motivated by the free market, it would be in their interest to encourage people not to wear seat belts, wouldn't it?
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
Maybe it would, but as I said to someone (may have been you) earlier, most of the mess from a collision is not going to be from a person, the cars that hit each other would create vastly more mess. It is in the security companies interest that you don't feel safe, it's in the interest of the state that you fear other states so you feel like you need them. Someone is usually going to gain from a bad situation, that's just life.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
It would be OK if they all start passing laws like - if there is ever a terrorist attack in this state all legislators will forfeit their personal wealth to the citizens they failed to protect.
If you want to pass laws that infringe on personal rights you must accept a responsibility to those people.
BetsOnDogs 1 year ago
You still CAN choose to not wear seatbelt, with certain forceful consequences (including arrest). Just like you can choose to not eat, with certain forceful consequences (including starvation). Your existence is biologically conditioned as well as sociologically conditioned. As society increases in its complexity, its self-regulating system naturally expands, and people start to fail to see the immediacy of their relationship with the system, lapsing into inadequate individualism.
mirandansa 1 year ago
@mirandansa
that's some nice sophistry.
the benefits of the division of labor provide more than enough incentive for people to see the importance of "society."
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@mirandansa
No shit. I know that the seat belt does not magically attach itself, or whatever. Obviously some people are inflicting punishment on other for them not obeying the state, that is the whole point of the video.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
Anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is a clown - if you're not wearing a seatbelt and there are other people in the car with you, and you have a crash, your flailing idiot rag-doll corpse could cause death or injury to others who aren't as retarded and selfish as you.
If you want to get rid of seatbelt laws we should get rid of driving licences too - let unskilled drivers bomb aroud at 100 miles an hour, blind-drunk and texting on their phones - Viva la Revolucion! ;)
hadr0n 1 year ago
@hadr0n Um that's why insurance companies charge more if it's found out that you drive unsafely. DERP
ladyattis 1 year ago
@ladyattis Yes, because, of course, when you learn to drive you go to an insurance broker rather than a driving tutor.
hadr0n 1 year ago
@hadr0n But no government is good at keeping track of such unsafe behaviors, so that's pretty much my point. You can wait for a bureaucrat to post your ticket or you could have something else used to measure the odds of your safety or lack thereof. *shrugs*
ladyattis 1 year ago
@hadr0n
yeah, and we should stop painting those lines down the middle of the road so that all the idiots will be swerving recklessly all over the road!
w/o the govt there would be chaos!!!!
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee NO! Without the government everyone would be free to live forever and shit rainbows because the free market would sort everything out! ;)
hadr0n 1 year ago
@hadr0n
When you are done fighting with men of straw, let me know.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I was just havin' a larf! :P
hadr0n 1 year ago
Go ahead. Don't wear your seatbelt - make a statement. Pay the fines, wheel the wheelchair. Some people have to be protected from themselves because unlike you, they don't wear their seatbelt because they're too bloody lazy to put it on.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
talk about an unwarranted sense of superiority. what is it with all of the irrational statheists running around saying they are for science and reason?
i think seat belts are the least of our worries. how many tens of thousands of people die each year on the government run roads? the problem is state monopolization, not people who are "too bloody lazy."
i think you are too bloody lazy to learn about the rational economic theory.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee State Monopolization? How does that contribute to whether or not people wear their seat-belts? I don't like in America so maybe there's something here that I'm missing. You can't put enconomic policies in place that encourage people to wear seatbelts, unless you give out some sort of reward to people who do wear them. And perhaps 000s more people would have died on your government run roads if they hadn't been wearing seatbelts?
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
i'm referring to how the roads are run in general, not specifically just the seat belt thing, but i can see how you'd get that from way i made the sentence.
and i have a hard time believing that the seat belt law made much of a difference in terms of who wears their seat belt and who doesn't. really though we can never know. i am against the extortion used to pay for the enforcement of this petty law, however, as well as state ownership of the roads.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee You might not be able to measure how the law affects seatbelt use, but you can measure the results of crash tests in which the dummies do and don't wear sealt-belts.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AD
sure, you can measure all kinds of things, but economic science does not involve measurement. values, preferences, choices, etc., cannot be measured. increases or decreases in happiness cannot be measured. the question is what could people have otherwise done with that money if they weren't forced to pay for the cops?
and i wonder what other safety devices would be developed if it weren't for the state's "seat belt chauvinism." also, methinks the roads in general would be far safer.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee My daughter works for a market research company: their reason for being is to measure people's attitudes, values, preferences, choices and the changes in them. How does having seatbelt laws give any state the excuse to weasel out of improving roads. I know some road laws appear to be revenue raising only, and perhaps they are, but somehow I think the cops would still get their funding even if seatbelt wearing was voluntary.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AD
you can't measure an increase or decrease in satisfaction. would you deny this? and how could you possibly "measure" choices or preferences? by asking people questions? that is just a garble of statistical data.
monopolization increases the weasel factor, no? they are not nearly as disciplined by profit and loss criteria, and thus are able to get away with lower quality. why should extortionists provide any more "service" than is necessary to keep you believing in their story?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee I deny it - how about measuring brain waves and the responses to different stimuli? How do you find out what people are thinking other than by observing and asking questions? Governments are partially motivated by profit and loss. Huge deficits don't win elections, for example.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AD
and what could that possibly tell you? experience is private. you can "measure" from the outside all you want, but there is no way to know for sure what "measurements" of "brain waves" will mean wrt to a person's conscious experience.
"not nearly as disciplined by profit and loss"
did i ever deny that there isn't some degree of profit and loss? no. even states have a credit rating. but petitions and letters and votes are just plain retarded gimmicks which hugely disempower you.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
Yes, let's empower the state to "save" us from ourselves. That kind of power would never be misused.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I'm actually for the legalisation of drugs, because legalisation would make them safer, undermine the 'free-enterprise' of organised crime, and address inconsistencies in what is legal, what isn't and why. I don't think legalising drugs would make drug abuse worse, but I think legalising no-seatbelts would make the results of most traffic accidents much worse.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
I'd ask you to back that up some how. Why would most accidents be worse? You really think most people wear them because they are told to by the state?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I don't think I phrased that properly... what I meant was, if no-seatbelts was legal, the road death-toll would be higher. I do think less people would wear them if it wasn't illegal. The fact they must be worn encourages us all to remember to put them on. Wearing them is almost automatic, because of the laws. Obviously not all laws are good, and some road laws do seem to be blatant revenue-raising only. I just think the seatbelt one is a good one.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
First of all, I dispute the idea that it is automatic to put it on because of the law. I put mine on because it's a good idea, and I do it habitually because that's what I am used to doing
Also, assuming you are right about the higher death tolls, I would ask you justify forcing someone to wear a seat belt because of that. If someone knows what a seat belt does, and does not wear it anyway, that is on them. More careless people dying when they took too much risk. That's my point
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@F'sE: What about the people who may not be driving badly but are not wearing a SB and get hit by a careless driver? What about the fact that all people have a right to an ambulance and triage whether they wore a belt or not? (I am glad about that). SB law is a form of prevention of $s being spent on hospital care/rehabilitation/disability. While you and I put on our belts automatically, perhaps some people don't and the ads remind them. The fine is an extra incentive to wear them.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
If you cannot convince someone to wear a seatbelt because it could SAVE THEIR LIFE, how much incentive does a fine add?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Probably quite a lot, because most of us think we won't get killed in a traffic accident. We're far more scared of getting pulled over by the cops. Human nature... the 'it won't happen to us' mentality.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
That mentality also applies to being pulled over. You can also put your seat belt on when a cop is near by.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge And if the cop's presence reminds you to put your belt on - YAY problem solved. We have speed cameras here and their locations are given out on the local radio stations - police publicise them. Reminds people to slow down. Same with red-light cameras. Fair warning is given.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
How is someone waiting until they see a cop to put on the belt solving the "problem"?
So slowing down at just those places they put the cameras is the goal? This all seems rather silly and pointless to me. Well, the point would be reminding you to OBEY, of course.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge We all have to obey something, sometime, even if it's only our own instincts.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
That's hardly the same thing, now is it?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Okay - no it isn't. How about when your parent told you not to stick a knife in an electricity outlet? Or when there's a 'no diving' sign at the shallow end of the pool?
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
Once again, that is good advice. I certainly advocate teaching children basic safety tips, as well as signs advising against risky behavior. I AM against the state deciding that I am a child that needs to be robbed and intimidated into not risking my own life, which is my choice. I am against people using the state(or any coercive measures) to bully people.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge If you could think of another way of emphasising the importance of wearing seatbelts to the public, maybe your way would work better. Usually such campaigns involve pictures of horrible accidents and people don't like that either. I think these days a huge majority of people wear seatbelts whereas 50 years ago most cars didn't even have them. But then there was far less traffic (and powerful vehicles) on the roads. Would you make it mandatory for all cars to have seatbelts?
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
Nope. Sure wouldn't. If someone does not want a car with seatbelts, that's their choice. It would be a dumb choice, in my opinion, but it's their's to make.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge Assuming SB wearing became voluntary, would you make it mandatory for manufacturers to make all cars with seatbelts? If no, what other safety features would you make optional ?
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
I would allow for as many different features as someone wants. Here, watch this. Milton Friedman, addresses this perfectly.
/watch?v=-_gU50mfehI
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge
I don't agree with him on everything, obviously, but the way he describes risk being a matter of personal choice to some extent.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge So seatbelts wouldn't be mandatory in new cars? People have the right to take risks, but to what extent do they have the right to expect others to cover the cost of their risk--taking going wrong? How would making SBs voluntary affect the life insurance industry? SB manufacturers? People worrying about their loved ones?
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
I don't know how it would affect those things necessarily, that is not my area of expertise.
As for others absorbing the cost of risks, that's just part of life, I hate to break it to you. Making a rule against something does not make it go away. You cannot legislate risk away. Again, I ask how far do you want to take this giving the power to the state to assess risk and coerce us into conforming to their idea of safety?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdgePeople will get hurt and killed sometimes despite all the safe-guards whether they be compulsory or voluntary. But imagine this: you're a doctor in triage. You can only deal with saving one patient's life at a time. Identical twins come in. Every aspect of their lives is the same but they've both been injured separately. One twin was in a car accident, wasn't wearing his seat belt, and because of that is grievously injured; the other was struck by lightning - a random event.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian You have to choose which twin to save. Both will die unless they are treated first. Which one do you choose to save and why? And if you choose the one who was struck by lightning, aren't you punishing the other one for not wearing his seat belt?
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
I would choose to save whichever one had a higher chance of surviving, which is what they are supposed to do. That being equal, I would save the one that wasn't responsible for his injuries. and yes, I guess it would be punishing that person, do you have an alternative? That is a hard situation that there is no right answer to. This concept certainly doesn't do anything to convince me that mandatory seat belt laws are justified.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
By the way, statism does not get to be right by default. If I can't come up with another way of emphasizing seat belt use, it does not make the violent, statist way the right one. But I imagine a company offering a seat belt as a feature and explaining it's use would be easy enough to do, but you don't even have to do that. Cars come standard with seat belts now.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
If the goal of these laws is to prevent money being spent for health care and what not, how much more power do you want to give the state to dictate your behavior? Diet? Mandatory work-outs? Do you really think it's the domain of this group of popularity contest winners and bureaucrats to dictate our behavior so it can save us money? Why don't we just fire those sumbitches and save money that way, if it's all about saving money? How wasteful is the state?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I absolutely get what you're saying... while smoking and alcoholism are legal and junk food and obesity are legal it seems wrong that no SBs is illegal. I see that, and I wouldn't want the aforementioned things to be illegal. But I do believe that ads on the dangers of those things are valid, as are programs to encourage people to live healthier lifestyles. Those things can be remedied over time, but a head-injury usually can't be remedied and is more immediate.
AuntieDiluvian 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian
If people voluntarily payed for such ads, sure. I would have no problem with it at all.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@AuntieDiluvian:
Orgainzed crime is NOT "free-enterprise", and it thrives mostly due to idiotic state-enforced prohobitions. But I think you already know that and would agree.
However, concerning the seatbelts, while it is indeed a relatively minor offense to liberty, why should the government be a nanny on whether people get fucked up over personal bad choices? I can understand using force to keep drunk drivers off the road,because they endanger others, but why should they force the seatbelts?
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
not wearing a seat belt also puts other peoples lives in danger, it's been a law here for the last 20 years, if you crash at high speed and you flailing body flys out of the seat and hits another person in the car it's likely to kill them!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
I've already answered this a few times, and now it's in the description.
Should we make it illegal t have anything unrestrained in the car? How car do you want to take this? Isn't it really risky to be riding around in a car at all? How many people die in car wrecks every year WITH seat belts?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge exactly, so why increase the risk any further by being a careless asshole!? I'm one of the most anti-state people you'll ever meet, but I actually think this one has some sense to it!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
I never said anyone should be a careless asshole. I said I wear my seat belt. For fuck sake, I am not advocating that you not wear a seat belt! I am against the state bullying someone into protecting themselves.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge I didn't say otherwise, I just believe there is alot of stupid people out there, and something like this is probably for their own good! this is something that should be done out of commen sense anyway, but for those that lack the commen sense to do it need to be told that there are consequences to their stupidity before it's too late and they actually hurt someone!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
Sure, need to be told. Whatever. Tell them. I wear my seat belt because it's a good idea. You don't have to bully people into doing something that makes sense. For the people who don't want to do it, they won't do it anyway. You can't legislate good behavior. It's just a way to justify charging you when you do not OBEY.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge i think that's true to some degree but there will be plenty of people that do take note, like parents being more careful; to tell their kids to put it on, (i've seen this happen) the law has made them think i dont want to risk getting a fine so i'll make sure everyone in my car has their seat belt on. after almost 2 decades of that law being here i have seen a big improvement in how much people wear seat belts!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
I always tell people I am in a car with to wear a seatbelt. Why do I do it? Because I care about that person and I don't want them to be hurt for no good reason. Now do I advocate giving someone the power to save me and everyone else from ourselves, and bully and coerce us into conforming? Absolutely not.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge but it can only be considered bullying if it's unfair, which it's not, say you were carrying a loaded uzi around in a crowded shopping mall, it's your human right to ignore safety and do it if you want to, but would the police not have the right to disarm you and arrest you if they thought you were being a threat to the safety of others? they can't predict what your intentions were so the only sensible thing to do is punish you for being a possible risk to others!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
Who gets to decide what's fair? The bully? That makes a lot of sense.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge that was a childish strawman and you know it!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
No, it wasn't. It sounded to me like you are okay with the state imposing arbitrary restrictions on people. Who decides if it's fair? Since this system is majority rules, if the majority decides what it wants, and the minority doesn't like it they are bullied into paying for it and going along with it. That is the whole point. The bully decides what is fair.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge well you yourself said you tell people in your car to belt up because you care about them and dont want them to get hurt, so isn't something fair when it's to protect the people you care about? from your arguments point of view, why can't i drink and drive? it's my car i can do what i like! the majority shouldn't be able to decide for me!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
I don't see any crime inherent in drinking and driving. Running into other people is a crime. I certainly would never advocate drinking and driving, but I am not going to support a rule that punishes someone for being risky, but not actually hurting anyone. If they hurt someone, then it's a crime. We should always be be very frank about engaging in dangerous behavior, and as friends or citizens or whatever you can do something about it.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge well that's just silly, if one of your family members was killed by a drunk driver i'm sure you would change your mind on that policy very quickly!! the fact is that law has been here for many years and i've been a witness to improvements in safety behaviour, everyone had the same reaction as you when it first came out, but now it's actually seen as quite sensible.
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
No, it's not silly. I am anti-statist, remember? I am very serious about people taking responsibility for their choices. I won't go into detail for their sake, but I have someone in my family who is very close to me who almost died and almost killed some people drinking and driving. It's something I take very seriously. However, I am not about creating power structures to bully people around. I absolutely believe in people suffering the consequences of the damage they do.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge well okay, that's understandable, but there are plenty of heartless bastards out there that if they killed someone drink driving it wouldn't bother them morally, they wouldn't suffer any consequences they would just be. "oh well! sorry" it ends up becoming a case of where do you draw the line, the sad reality of it is the careless nature of the retarded few make these kind of law nessacary so there isn't complete chaos,.
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
This idea that the state robbing you for doing something makes that something go away needs to be supported. You assume.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge 2. if there was no legal consequences for dangerous behaviour i bet there is at least 1% of the population that would be totally uncontrollable. that 1% could do alot of damage. then your anti statism just becomes purist anarchy.
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
That sounds like it was totally pulled out of your ass.
I am against dangerous behavior that actually hurts people, I am not about preemptively targeting people who are not actually hurting anyone for state imposed behavior modification.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
By the way, I am not speaking from a statist point of view, meaning that when I say I wouldn't make it illegal, it means I wouldn't advocate my own subjective view, that it is bad, as a set in stone rule. Whatever the intersubjective consensus on drinking and driving would determine what, if anything people would do about it. I would of course support people being held liable for the damage they actually do, not penalizing people before they have hurt anyone.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge oh ok i see where your coming from now, scrap what i said in that last comment lol
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
it's just another reason for the cops to go on reckless car chases ending in way more deaths than any seat belt law could have helped prevent.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee you pulled that one straight our of your ass, yes? I know cops are dumb but i've never heard of them going in to hot pursuit over a seat belt! and if they do then there is something seriously (insanly) wrong with the people upholding the law and not the law itself. if american cops can't make the judgement call on weather its worth risking their lives and the lives of others over such minor violations they shouldn't be in that job!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soul
just watch any cop show and watch for the reasons that they chase people. all it takes is for you to speed off.
"american cops can't make the judgement call"
state agents don't make judgments calls. they have already surrendered every ounce of common sense in order to blindly do whatever they are told to do. if it's "the law" then you can be sure they'll try to enforce regardless.
that's why 5 year olds are getting their lemonade stands shut down. no permit (and no common sense).
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee well that just proves my point that its the people upholding the law not the law itself, which unfortunatley has no easy solution, until there is a complete government collapse and a public revolution your not gonna get a better law enforcment service!
soulsanctuarymusic1 1 year ago
@soulsanctuarymusic1
the problem is the extortion funded monopolization of the roads, security, and the law. and i agree that we shouldn't expect any improvement in "services" any time soon, they have no incentive to do so when their paychecks come in almost no matter what!
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Christ you're getting boring.
chrisbuxton1958 1 year ago
@chrisbuxton1958
I don't see anything entertaining on your channel.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge fair comment, but your vision of a tax free society would simply be one of the rich controlling everything and the poor would likely starve. and the seat belt issue would be irrelevant as there wouldn't be any roads to drive on in a libertarian country!
chrisbuxton1958 1 year ago
@chrisbuxton1958
You assert all kinds of things that you didn't back up(because you can't). You are aware there are private roads now, right? That is one of the biggest jokes in the anti-statist community. "Who will build the roads?!"
As for the rich controlling everything, who do you think controls everything now? Where do the millions of dollars that go to a single ad campaign for a senate seat(for example) that pays $500,000 a year come from? Who has all the lobbyists?
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@FearsEdge well that's fair comment to some extent, but when you vote it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, we are all equal. Who would try to protect the poor, the weak in your society? we would just have anarchy. YOU want change so YOU prove that I'm wrong. some elected government is essential and I think you know it.
chrisbuxton1958 1 year ago
@chrisbuxton1958
Voting is a trick, democracy is a brutal and barbaric institution, and representative government is a complete farce. Some form of governance is necessary, I am simply advocating for a stateless society, which means that there wouldn't be this one entity exempt from the rules everyone else follows.
FearsEdge 1 year ago
@chrisbuxton1958
jesus christ, that's some textbook statheism right there!
"we need to give random people the power to legally extort the population at large and counterfeit trillions of dollars or else there will be a giant wealth disparity!"
the economic ignorance is astounding.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee random??? hardly! and democracy does work well where it is genuine...eg switzerland etc. as for ignorance...do you know me??? no you don't so grow up and stop being a prick.
chrisbuxton1958 1 year ago
@chrisbuxton1958
no, but it's pretty obvious from your comments.
as for switzerland....the question is whether or not, all things being equal, a society would be better off with or without a state. so it's pointless to point out switzerland as some kind of example, how do you know they wouldn't be better off w/o a state?
and how could you ever make such a statement when you don't understand the mechanism behind cooperation and prosperity?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee ok look you have to prove your point not me. I contend that having a democratically elected government here in the uk is better than anything you have to offer. you may be a nihilist but most of us are not.
chrisbuxton1958 1 year ago