Americans Demand Increased Government Protection From Selves

Seeing as how this comes from the satirical news source The Onion, I would remind everyone not to take the cited examples too seriously. But as humorous and fictitious as the article is meant to be, I can't help but feel we truly are seeing a movement in America to enact more legislation to protect us, not from unavoidable dangers but from ourselves.

In most states (if not all) it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle without wearing a seatbelt. Across the nation legislation is being passed or pushed to prohibit smoking within privately owned establishments. For years the health department has had the power to close establishments for federally enforced health violations. And lately it doesn't seem uncommon to hear of cases in which citizens sue for provision of unhealthy products and environments.

Considering the exposure to danger rests on the choices of individual citizens, it seems to me such legislation as mentioned above is intended more as a means of protecting Americans from their own carelessness and irresponsibility than as a means of eliminating true dangers to the public and state.

The examples I have provided, as well as any others members introduce to the debate, are open to discussion. While we may discuss individual laws and circumstances, though, I would like to make sure that we stick with the focus provided by the polling question:
Is America moving toward more legislation to protect Americans from themselves?

Also, as it is connected with the original question:
Do you agree or disagree that legislation to protect Americans from themselves should be permissable?

You ask a very broad question Abs, so I voted "unsure."

Grades of ground beef (chuck, round, etc) are now being labled to reflect what percentage of fat has been removed from the meat. Americans are constantly bombarded about being overweight, smoking too much, not getting enough exercise, slouching, sitting too close to the television and speaking with their mouths full.

Kids can't play on swings or jungle gyms anymore. They're unsafe and made of dangerous materials. At many schools kids aren't allowed to run around or engage in competition games during recess. Somebody might fall down and get hurt (and possibly sue). Perish forbid that a slower kid might feel inadequate and develop a poor self-image because they aren't chosen for dodgeball.

Yeah, we're stuck with a Nanny government and when it really becomes intrusive is manifested in the Terry Schivano case in Florida where the state government enacted a law for the benefit of one person.

In this strange urge to be protected from ourselves, we're breeding a generation of flabby neurotics who are afraid to do anything that smacks of being a risk.

Quite obviously, although we all tend to draw the line differently. Non-smokers, for example will claim that anti-smoking laws are protecting them from second-hand smoke.
A difficult question. In my opinion, prohibition and punishment (such as the "sin taxes" and fuel efficiency laws aimed specifically at SUVs) should not be allowed, but advisories (such as labelling the fat content of meat as nighttimer mentioned) can be helpful without forcing anything on anyone.

We definitely are coming closer and closer to the "Nanny State".

I think it can be argued that the government should force businesses into a greater disclosure as to the possible negative effects that their products might have. There is nothing wrong with an informed consumer.

But an informed consumer should have the freedom to make the wrong decision. Everyone knows that Big Macs are fattening. Everyone knows that a Big Mac a day will eventually lead to clogged arteries and potential obesity. But should we ban Big Macs? No. We should inform people about what the possible consequences of their actions are and then LET THE INDIVIDUAL MAKE THE DECISION.

What we have instead in a government that increasing wants to protect us from knowing, informed decisions which deviate from the "correct" one.

Should we ban, as the article spoofs, trendy clothing or going out at night because they promote indebtedness? Certainly not.

The government is not there to take care of us. The government is no there to provide for us. The government is (obstensibly) there for defense against internal and external threats and to provide certain services which we can not individually afford (roads, etc.).

Sad to say that we ARE moving toward the Nanny State.

Although this quote from the article is tongue in cheek, I think there is a growing number of people who agree with exactly this philosophy. They may disagree on the face, but at the core when they examine their stances on certain issues, they just may see that they truly do advocate a "Nanny State" without even realizing it.

You know national tort reform would help with all these frivolous lawsuits.

No more see-saws, no more jungle gyms, no more sky high swings... why even have a playground anymore.

You can't order a rare or medium rare steak anymore.

I think it really all stems from the lawyers personally. People don't want to take responsibility for their actions, inturn suing for every little thing.

On a side note: I am not saying all lawsuits are frivolous, but suing McDonalds for hot coffee? Come on!

[QUOTE] In my opinion, prohibition and punishment ... should not be allowed.

So, do you advocate a prohibition on prohibition?

Perhaps there are more to fuel efficiency laws than mere 'sin' and 'prohibition.' What is the net cost of all the medical bills and insurance costs of all the people whose health is adversely impacted by the added release of volatile organic compounds from SUV's? Not to mention the time spent at the hospital...

Yes and no. Americans want the government to pass certain laws to make certain things a requirement to make our society more safe and to save lives. Seatbelt laws for example.

But they don't like it when the government gets involved in their personal lives. A recent examopel woudl be the Sodomy law thing by the Supreme Court about a gay couple and what they do in their own home.



I think it should be not allowed because Americans want the government to stay out of their lives as much as possible

these lawsuits appear to be saying that no, we can't control ourselves. It's always someone else's fault that we're 300lbs, have lung cancer. it's the gun makers fault that we killed someone, not ours and so on.

Seatbelts DO save lives, so why aren't we all smart enough to protect ourselves from becoming projectiles by wearing them?

yes, we probably are becoming the nanny state.

Yes, we're trying to litigate ourselves into a safe cocoon. We can't, of course, but we're spending a lot of time lately trying. I DO think we need more rules to prevent others -- corporations or individuals -- from harming us with their products or actions (e.g., pollutants, drunk driving, etc.), but I don't think we need rules to keep us from harming ourselves.

I don't really blame lawyers for all this, but I do blame the overcrowded legal profession and the lack of a reasonable cap (not the one the R's tried to recently enact) on lawsuit awards. Specifically the punitive damages portion of the award -- to "punish" the offender -- sometimes gets out of hand.

Here's my idea for reducing lawsuits: all punitive damage awards are placed into a government fund for providing pre-K and college tuition to anyone who qualifies. Or maybe I'm just a liberal for thinking that

No doubt about it. There is a sect of people who think they need to control the risks in my life.

When I was a freshman in highschool (a long long time ago), my highschool baseball coach took all the 1st year players into the film room and showed us film of batters being hit in the head by 95 mile per hour fastballs.

He did this to demonstrate that, when you step into the batters box, you agree to take the risk that a "deadly weapon" might be put through your skull.

No pitcher ever gets arrested when this happens because the batter "agrees" to the assault when he steps into the batters box.

Risk is part of what gives life flavor.........

Tim

I am really surprised. Sometime in the past century, we liberals managed to get a law repealed; and I have yet to see the Conservatives mount any significant effort to have it placed back on the books. It seems most likely that it would fall within these guidelines, of protecting us from ourselves.

It used to be against the law in most English speaking countries to attempt suicide. When the law managed to catch someone who was attempting suicide, they would be arrested, brought to trial, and if convicted... They would be hanged. The various governments wanted to take no chances on recidivism.

I can't answer that...



I'm going to go against the general consensus here and say; sometimes. I'm in favour of labels that allow consumers to know just what is in the stuff they're eating. I'm also in favour of seatbelt laws. I can still remember that when I was younger, whenever I stepped into a car, someone would ask if I had my seatbelt on, and sometimes they'd even add the statement, "because if the police see you..."

Seatbelts save lives. The troglodyte who doesn't wear a seatbelt believes he's immortal. However, his immortality doesn't extend to his finances. With the threat of a fine, the troglodyte is encouraged to do the right thing. Or rather, he's discouraged from doing the wrong thing.

Sometimes people simply don't know how to take care of themselves. Sometimes, to make a safer society, a little restriction is necessary, although I can only view with disdain the rather drastic attempts to sue over the heat of coffee or the cholesterol of a burger. It's all about moderation.



We are in accord. I approve of laws that make society safer with a minimal impact on our liberties.

Why is this necessary? If a person is does not want to wear a seatbelt, their decision affects only them. Why can't a person make the choice to be involved in a potentially dangerous activity, as long as nobody ELSE is harmed. I totally disagree with this. Who are they to stop me from hurting myself. Unfortunately this is getting more and more common. Soon it's going to be illegal for me to slap my forehead.

Not quite true. Grant me a couple of obvious assumptions here: (1) the person has car insurance; (2) people who don't wear seat belts are more likely to have significant injuries (or death) in a collision than people who wear seat belts.

Given those two points, then the person who doesn't wear a seat belt and gets into an accident causes MY insurance rates to go up.

Why? Because car insurance is really just a pool of money from which claims are paid. If claims are higher -- because of the more significant injuries in an accident when seat belts aren't used -- then the pool needs to be increased in order to pay those claims. How does the pool size get increased? By raising rates to the pool members. That would be me. And you. And everyone else in the pool. So... your wearing a seat belt saves me money. And you money. And everyone else in the pool.

That's how it affects others.

When someone buys a car more costly to repair your insurance rates go up. When someone parks his car in the street, instead of in the garage, during a hailstorm, your insurance rates go up. When someone has 6 kids, instead of that national average, you insurance goes up. When fatty foods are consumed at a greater level, your insurance goes up.

Every thing that an American "chooses" makes Insurance rates go up.

Whats your point?

This idea that one is better then the other is getting out of hand.

I agree with protective legislation in the case of children, who cannot speak for themselves and who are subject to the whims and often the negligence of their parents.

Car child safety seats and laws which keep children under 12 from sitting in the front seat of a car have saved lives. If it wasn't the law, how many parents would follow it? In addition, child car seats are made available to those who cannot afford them.

Making the spaces narrower between the bars on the sides of cribs, and changing the designs of toy boxes so that they cannot suffocate a child who climbs or falls in improves the chance that the child will live to see another birthday.

As far as adults go, if they are stupid enough to ignore laws/guidelines for safety, let them suffer the consequences of their stupidity. If they want to splatter their brains on the pavement rather than wear helmets when riding motorcycles, they probably don't have much in the cranial compartment to lose anyway.

When someone buys a car more costly to repair THEIR rates are higher than mine, based on repair costs and an army of actuarial data.

Certain areas of the country prone to bad weather pay higher insurance rates than me. Indeed, if there are high losses in an area, the rates of everyone in that area will indeed go up, because the risk went up. Which makes sense.

Please explain how when someone else has 6 kids MY insurance goes up. When I assume you mean my health insurance, which is paid by the person convered, I can't understand how this is possible.

In areas where high fat foods are consumed in larger quantities -- like where I live in the South -- insurance rates may indeed be higher, although I doubt either of us have any data to support that assertion.

However, all these examples don't explain why people shouldn't have to wear seat belts in order to lower the insurance rates -- and mortality rates -- of everyone.

I couldn't care less about the troglodyte either. But what about his family? If he can decide for himself that he doesn't need to wear a seatbelt, he can decide for his children, right? So we'll put in legislation that specifically targets children and leaves adults "free". And then if the children must wear seatbelts, but not the father, and then he dies and the children live, what then?

Yes, you're right, it's no skin off my nose. The children can grow up fatherless. We're smart enough to wear a seatbelt and we don't need the government trampling on our liberties.

It's all about ME.

It's all about me?

Guess you never drive over 55. Study after study shows a national 55 mph speed limit saves lives. Yes lives of seatbelted children.

Support a national speed limit of 55? No?

Hmmmm?

As much as I might like to be compassionate and support the idea of legislation to protect children from emotional and financial hardship, I simply don't see it as part of the job for the United States government to play nanny to either a parent or the children of parents who engage in risky behavior. Prohibiting risky behavior of one individual because of the potential emotional or financial distress it may cause another person appears only to take away personal liberty and suggest that abstract interests can take priority over our rights to our own bodies and actions.


While people who don't wear seat belts are more likely to have significant injuries following an automobile accident, their decision not to wear a seat belt has no influence over whether or not they are in an accident to begin with. And I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that car insurance covers the automobile not the person. Considering this, any person involved in an accident, with or without a seat belt, could potentially lead to an increase in insurance rates.

Edited to add:
I can support manufacturing labels because rather than protecting people from their own irresponsibility, lables protect consumers from corporate misdeeds. I would support more labels with automobiles stressing the importance of a seat belt in driving safety, but I can't support legislation making seat belt usage mandatory. So long as my actions harm none the government shouldn't be deciding what is "right" or "wrong" for me.

Not sure about the state where you live, but in the three states I've lived, car insurance had several components: liability, collision, comprehensive, and medical. Some also have "uninsured motorist".

Collision covers the car in an accident.
Comprehensive covers the car in the event of "an act of God".
Medical covers your health costs.
Liability covers everyone else's health and car costs in case you are at fault in the accident.
Uninsured motorist covers you in case the other driver is uninsured and is at fault.

While I agree that unbelted drivers are no more likely to get into an accident -- which means the total number of accidents has not increased -- you agree that those who are unbelted have more expensive accidents. So my rates will go up to cover that additional expense.

Yes, accidents make rates go up, but only if the claims are in excess of what the insurance company's actuaries said they needed to cover a "normal" cost of claims. So, if more unbelted folks have accidents, the "normal" number will be lower than necessary and rates go up.

But how are insurance rates within the purview of the government?

Is it the government's responsibility that we have cheaper products? (I think not, given the level of regulations and bureaucracy that the government forces upon businesses...)

BTW, health insurance costs increase overall if someone has 6 kids because most plans simply have a "family" rate, regardless of the actual size of the family. So insuring 6 kids is more expensive overall, but not for the individual with the 6 kids. Should the government mandate that no one have more than 2.3 kids?

As far as the insurance industry goes, rates and plans are submitted to your state's insurance commissioner and must be approved before they can go into effect.

No, the government is not responsible for making sure we have cheaper products (although there's a lot of farming subsidy recipients who would argue otherwise).

BUT... people complain regularly to their representatives that their "fill in the blank" rates are too high. If government is going to have a commissioner to approve plans and rates -- like the Public Service Commission, the Insurance Commissioner, etc. -- then it makes sense that people will expect that those offices can do something to get rates down (like your cable, phone, gas, electric, etc. rates).

Seat belt laws are usually sold as a way to lower insurance costs. Your state/local representative likes being able to lower his/her constituent's costs, so they feel the need to "do something" about it.

Is this "protecting ourselves" or just "lowering costs for all"? Depends on whether you want everyone to wear a seat belt.

As I've stated elsewhere, why not pass legislation mandating that all people eat correctly and exercise regularly? After all, a proper diet and exercise SAVES LIVES! We've got to save lives, don't we? If we oppose legislation that will save lives, then aren't we insensitive? Aren't we ignoring the good of the community?

Whatever happened to personal freedom?


Aha! Here we see where the problem starts: we ask our government to facilitate something for us. Here is where we MUST see that government is fertile ground for so-called "slippery slopes". When you ask your government to do one thing for you, you may or may not realize that this one action often begets several other actions. So we have asked our government to regulate insurance rates, have we? So now we've given the government an interest in controlling those rates. So now we've opened up the door for government to regulate toward that end. Because of the one door we opened, we have released a flood of other laws that further restrict our personal liberty.

This is precisely why we should keep government out of as many things as possible -- even things that seem harmless. I've heard talk in some European countries of passing laws actually requiring over-weight people to eat a certain way or to exercise a certain amount. How is this? Well, after all, they have socialized healthcare and a person's unhealthy practices can ultimately result in an increased burden on society as a whole (since everyone is footing the bill for healthcare). So now suddenly government has a compelling interest in regulating what you eat and how you conduct your day-to-day life!

I submit that these Nanny-state laws are trojan horses either by design or by accident that will inevitably remove our freedoms from us if we do not stop them now.

Abstract interests? I think it's quite practical. Perhaps we disagree with the role of government. I believe that it has a certain responsibility to the people it governs. One of those is improving quality of life, which I do not believe is an abstract interest, and manifests itself in issues like welfare.



Go back and read my first post. I did say moderation is the key. Sure, we can make every wall padded, but that isn't very practical, is it? Hmmmm?

I added that clause so people won't help themselves to a ride down the slippery slope, which inevitably occurs in these situations.

And restricting individual freedom for the potential benefit of another improves quality of life how? We have the freedom to pursue happy, but by no means are we guaranteed by our government to be happy. You seem to be suggesting that individuals should be required to wear seat belts so that others won't have to suffer should they lose their life. I don't see how the interests of others should outweigh the freedom to individual well being.

Following the logic you seem to be displaying, head family members should be prohibited from a wide range of activities based on their potential loss of life and the ensuing suffering of family members. The government may have a certain responsibility to the people it governs, but I disagree whole heartedly that its responsibility includes federally restricting individual freedom to one's body and actions on the basis of external interests.

It definitely improves the quality of life for that "other" if that potential scenario truly does come to pass.



Most laws do restrict individual freedom for the potential benefit of another. I really wish I could drive over the legal limit in the pursuit of happiness. To which I forsee you mentioning that a car crash has the potential to harm only them, so now it comes to...



No, no, no, the father example was to illustrate the folly in saying that "a person's refusal to wear a seatbelt affects only them" It most certainly impacts on other people's lives. We do not live in vacuums. A single death sends ripples throughout society. Someone's choice not to wear a seatbelt does not only harm them.

Oh, I see, what YOU feel is moderation is OK, What I feel is moderation is inappropriate.

Having a Restaurant that has a non-smoking area. Moderate or not?

Driving 55, if it is proven to save lives, would appear sensible, using a moderate logic. What is non practical? Logic is what it is.

hmmmm x 2

Unless other people are involved somehow in an accident or action, an individual's death harms only them. Every death, like any other action with consequence, will have an impact. But an impact in other people's lives is not the same as harm.


Laws such as those are to prevent the actions of one individual from doing harm to other citizens. If a person exceeds the speed limit they are putting other drivers at risk. Not wearing a seat belt while operating a vehicle does not put other citizens at risk.

There is a considerable difference between actions which impact society and those which harm them. And as far as those which do harm go, if society chooses to know and accept the risk, they should be free to do so.

Corvus:

I disagree. Quality of life is very subjective and differs from person to person. If the government is to enforce a "quality of life" standard to all, we are bound to have suffering since not everyone agrees on what a "quality life" is. To me, a quality life is the absence of government interference in my life. But my view of a quality life doesn't hold much weight with you, does it? So I guess I should be prohibited by law from ever having the kind of quality life I seek.


Maybe yes, maybe no. I could present a good argument that it actually diminishes the quality of life for the recipient ("other"). But one thing's for sure, it also diminishes the "quality of life" for the person from whom you are taking.

Oh, you know. Maybe traffic. Maybe the need to get to places on time. Maybe the fact that roads that some roads are less travelled than others, and have differing widths. It may be logical but it's not practical.

It's also logical to make every wall padded. But it ain't practical.



That's using a very narrow view of "harm". Shoplifting, in your sense, "harms" no one.



Whoops. That probably made me look stupid, but I meant to predict that you would say a driving limit harms other people. I acknowledge that. And I know you acknowledge that losing a person in a car crash can also [impact] other people.

I do understand what you're about, and you understand what I'm about. But we're only repeating our subjective views of what we feel a government ought to be allowed to do.



If you feel your quality of life depends on you not wearing a seatbelt, by all means, go ahead and risk a small fine.

Speaking seriously, though, I understand that seatbelts probably aren't a major personal concern for you, and it's the principle of the issue that you're about. I do respect that view. However, I feel the advantages I've mentioned outweigh the disadvantages in this particular instance. Not so for you.

ummmm, perhaps LEAVE EARLY for your appointments? PRACTICAL INDEED!

But thats OK, risk others lives so that YOU make the 7PM showing of Star Wars on time.

This is the main problem with all of these laws. Who makes them. They most always don't want to live by the same standards they set for others.

Exactly what harm is it that you feel an individual's death causes to society, Corvus? Since we have primarily been discussing the mandatory use of seat belts, let us specifically address the death of a person in a single car automobile accident.

The harm which springs to mind for me is emotional distress felt by family and friends, and the potential financial hardships felt by the loss of a family member's income. Neither of these appears to me sufficient for the government to legislate the actions of an individual which may prevent them from taking a calculated risk to their own life for either enjoyment or convenience.

Seat belts have the potential to save the lives of those individuals involved in an automobile accident regardless of fault. You and others participating seem to feel that the government has a responsibility to require that citizens make use of these devices in order to avoid the loss of their own life. Perhaps you will demonstrate some other reasons than the two I listed above, but based on those two it seems the government would have a host of things to either require or prohibit:

• Required helmets for motorcycles, if not prohibition of motorcycles altogether
• Prohibition of risky sports and activities such as skydiving and rock climbing
• Prohibition of foods exceeding designated cholesterol or calorie totals
• Prohibition of suicide and criminal prosecution of those attempting suicide

Some places already require helmets for motorcycles and there may still be some areas which continue to prosecute those who have attempted suicide. Either way, I don't think the government has either a responsibility or the authority to restrict individual freedom to an individual's body on the basis of the emotional or financial distress it may cause loved ones. Neither marriage or blood relations in this country strip a person of their autonomy, so it doesn't appear to me that such reasoning should be used to mandate individual actions which risk only the life of the individual involved in the act.

So to be clear, Corvus, what is it that you feel gives the government the responsibility or authority to restrict or prohibit individual actions risking only the life and well being of the individual involved?

Corvus:

I think this is where we differ. I don't believe that law should be written with pragmatism or pro/con tradeoffs as the only consideration. As you pointed out, I believe that the principles should be the paramount concern. If the law is sound in principle, then we can evaluate the pros and cons. If the law is unsound in principle, we should stop there. Applying bad principles will inevitably lead to bad laws no matter how much we'd like to convince ourselves otherwise.

Are you saying, then, that pragmatism and pro/con tradeoffs should not be considered at all? If not, then you would have to concede that some laws which might exist which are not ideologically pure but for which sufficiently compelling reason exists to adopt a less rigid or extreme version of our principles.

No. I'm saying that pragmatism cannot make a law based on bad or unsound principles good or acceptable. Certainly, our principles should be calibrated in such a manner so that they allow for what is good and oppose what is bad. And that's exactly why the principle takes precedent over the pragmatism. Laws that may lead to bad things may appear pragmatically justified, but if they're unsound in principle we are advancing precedent and thought patterns that are harmful.

In the case of helmet or seatbelt laws, I do not see a sound principle. Yes, forcing people to do something for their own good is pragmatically sound in that an end result is that people will have to do what is safe/healthy/etc, but so are alot of other things like eating right, exercise, etc. And I think it would be difficult to conceive of a law that is vitally needed pragmatically but unsound in principle. Not impossible, perhaps, but difficult.

Yeah, okay. If you thought it was practical you wouldn't have even mentioned this scenario in an effort to contest my own views.



I never leave the house. I don't have a car. I use public transport. I never even need to meet appointments.

So, what were you saying about not wanting to live by the same standards they set for others? It wouldn't make any difference in my life if the limit was lowered to 10.

Also, I hate Star Wars. Your assumptions are quite incorrect.



1 - As you say, some states have this already, and I support it.
2. These have standards that although may not prevent death or injury, certainly minimise it. Seatbelts don't prevent death or injury completely either. But it's a very simple precautionary measure that happens to be quite effective.
3. This is a somewhat shaky comparison. You're comparing a potential car crash, which could possilby kill someone outright, to the belated disaster that may arise from only excessive consumption of fatty food. Those are two very different things.
4. Come now, you're talking about the intentional demise of one's life versus the possibly unintentional downfall resulting from a car crash. Because someone doesn't wear a seatbelt does not mean that they intend to kill themselves. The seatbelt law prevents a death that may arise from their own negligence or, indeed, stupidity. Of course, there are some people who actually believe a seatbelt may do more harm than good, what with whiplash and all.

In both cases, to answer your direct question at the end of your post, is that the law prevents what would otherwise be (potentially) an unnecessary and very sudden death.. The government's responsibility is to the people, and I don't see such a law to be a shackle to citizen's freedoms, but a commendable way to save lives of stupid people.

Now, let me ask you a question. If the seatbelt law did not exist, should children be forced to wear seatbelts? They are minors under the law, and their wellbeing is left entirely in the hands of their parents.

It is understood that the legal guardians of children must act in the interest of their safety. For any guardian of children to knowingly put the life of a child at risk should be illegal because their actions, or inaction as it pertains to the use of a safety belt, directly impact the life and well being of another citizen.


I still don't see an explanation for what authority the government has to limit an invidual's freedom in order to save them from their own stupidity or carelessness. Rather than post warning labels and advisories, your suggestion implies that the government has the authority to mandate decisions for individual citizens rather than allow an individual to decide for themselves.

So long as the government ensures that citizens are aware of the potential dangers of an activity or substance, why shouldn't the citizen be afforded the right to consider the potential consequences of their actions and make a choice? Whether it's a pack of cigarettes with a skull and cross bones carrying a huge CANCER label on the back or a car visor explaining the importance of safety belts, what authority does the government have to strip a citizen of their right to take calculated risks to their safety?

Laws such as those requiring seat belts may be commendable for the lives it might save, but commendation alone doesn't appear enough for the government to usurp the rights of citizens to make decisions about their own lives and actions.

Corvus

Is leaving a bit earlier, so as not to need to drive faster, practical solution, if it potentially saves lives, or not?

Again, the problem with all these Goody-two-shoe laws is that those that promote them don't seem to want to follow through! No, they just know whats best for you, and that should be all that matters.



"I never leave the house" "I use public transportation"

Is there a bit of a problem here?

Oh, maybe if you left earlier to meet the "public Transportation" you wouldn't miss the start of "Dude wheres my car".

I honestly doubt we're headed towards being a "Nanny State". I don't believe that people who don't wear seatbelts should be punished when they ride in vehicles. Motorcyclists don't wear seatbelts, so why should car riders need to be required to wear them?

No, most states have helmet laws for motorcyclists, which are vigorously enforced.

I think we are definitely becoming a nanny state, where the government is trying to reduce us to victims and blamers who don't take responsibility for their own actions.

Everybody does realize that the government does not enforce seat belt policies or helmets for motorcycle riders to protect citizens, right? The insurance companies lobbied for these laws to save themselves money on medical expenses, making people safer is merely a side effect!

Most laws protecting consumers are passed for a myriad of reasons that don't include protecting citizens. Often these reasons stem from monetary gain, but are easier to sell under the notion that they are for our own protection. That's not necessarily wrong, but it's something to think about when you read about compassionate companies and a caring government.

On that note, I think our safety is not top priority for the government, but it is a nifty side effect of some greedy legislation.

Sometimes I think I may be too cynical, but then I remember there's no such thing...

I basically agree with slim.

But you don't have to be cynicall to think that way. Everyone should have absolute control over what they do to their own bodies. However, for things that don't seriously impact on individuals but have a great economic impact on society, there is little harm in writing laws over them. Fine people for not wearing seat belts, because if they don't they can drive up the cost to everyone else who contributes to their medical care. If its a big deal to them they can pay a fine instead of wearing their seat belts and thereby absorb a disproportional amount of the medical expenses, since they are also posing a disproportional amount of the risk to their health insurence.

Seems to me as though it would be just as easy, and less restrictive of individual freedom, to exempt those not taking federally advised precautions from receiving financial assistance. Just as insurance companies null life insurance policies for those who engage in life threatening activities or commit suicide, the government could withdraw support of those whose injuries were a direct result of their own negligence.

Making insurance or government assistance conditional appears to me to be a better solution than trying to legislate the actions of individual citizens. Seems to me everybody wins. An individual still has the right to evaluate government advisories, and choose to ignore them to the detriment of his or her safety; insurance companies or government agencies don't have to finance personal recklessness or stupidity; and less time is required by government agencies to enforce "nanny legislation."