[xayide]

Seat belt laws. For years, my inner Libertarian would cringe at the idea that the government could force someone to do something they didn't want to when it was their own life at risk. But then my inner Republican realized that if I were to be at fault in an accident, I would be financially and possibly criminally liable for a much steeper offense if the other party wasn't buckled up.

[jacobolus]

Not to sound harsh, but your logic here epitomizes the stereotype of conservative as uncaring/greedy/self-absorbed. Instead of being concerned that people will die, your reasons for supporting seat belt laws is that it reduces your liability. Maybe you actually have some concern for human life, and don't actually intend to leave that impression; if not, it's worth considering how you present your argument, because right away you've alienated anyone who doesn't have a strictly utilitarian (or perhaps libertarian) view of the world.

[JangoSteve]

I think maybe you missed something in his post. How is he being uncaring/greedy/self-absorbed by acknowldedging how he is impacted by others' decision to use a seatbelt or not?

He isn't saying people shouldn't wear a seatbelt. He's saying it should be their choice. If someone chooses not to wear their seatbelt, they obviously care more about their own convenience and comfort than their safety and well-being. Why should he (or anyone else) worry about their lives more than they do themselves?

Not to sound harsh, but I think that your logic epitomizes the stereotype of the extreme liberal who thinks it's everyone else's responsibility to support and take care of you. You've alienated anyone who doesn't have a strictly socialist view of the world.

Of course, if you're not alienating someone, then you're probably not thinking things through enough to form a strong opinion. So, good on you for having an opinion either way ;-)

[xayide]

It's more that I don't feel it's the government's place to tell people that they must wear a seat belt. It's their place to hold car manufacturers to safety standards that make sure their seat belts are effective and safe. It's their place to make it publicly known that wearing a seat belt greatly reduces your risk of injury or death in a collision. Beyond that, I feel very strongly that it is personal responsibility and choice.

When I realized that allowing this freedom could possibly encroach on my freedoms, it became a different issue. And I changed my mind.

[lazyant]

In Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People" he says to never argue with anyone, since you'll never convince the other person and if you do they'll resent you for making them look foolish (or something like this).

The case for wearing a seat belt is my exception to this rule. I was talking to a "libertarian" friend and he mentioned his life is his responsibility and he should wear the seat belt or not if he didn't want to. I told him that if he got in an accident and paralyzed because of not wearing seat belt then it wouldn't be fair to the rest of us tax payers to support him because of his decision. (This was in a modern country with universal health care).

He thought for a second and said, "oh, yes, you're right".

[JangoSteve]

Wow, I never thought of that. However, I don't think the answer is forcing people to wear seatbelts, but rather to exonerate the at-fault driver from the other driver's decision against seatbelt use. The former not only encroaches on people's rights, but it doesn't actually solve the problem mentioned, because the other person can still decide not to wear a seatbelt.

Luckily, I live in a no-fault state though. But still, that's a very good point.

[rsheridan6]

There are all sorts of cases like that. We're probably going to get universal healthcare, so other people's health expenses affect you since you'll be paying for them. So cattle prods + fatties + treadmills = more freedom for you.

I'm glad I'm not a libertarian or I'd be experiencing cognitive dissonance.