First of all, before I get started, I want to give a shoutout to the several blogs that have linked to mine in the past week or so. I have all of them in the Blogroll to your right, but I appreciate the warm welcome to IU Law from Doug Hass and Kyle Michael, and of course the links from Evan Schaeffer are always appreciated.
This was a sad week in Indiana for civil liberties. At the demands of the General Assembly, Indiana modified its seat belt laws to require use for all occupants of a motor vehicle, with a few exceptions for farm trucks, mail carriers, and newpaper delivery persons, among others. I simply cannot agree with this law and its alleged benefits for the public.
I agree completely that seat belts are a good idea. For the love of mercy, wear a damn seatbelt. Since we were kids, we've been raised to know that seat belts make driving much safer, and news stories abound of what happens when you don't (like Governor Corzine's incident in New Jersey when his SUV was driving 91 mph). Plain and simple, if you don't wear a seat belt, you are taking unnecesary risks in an age when stupid drivers are everywhere.
That said, the government has no place telling me how I should behave in my space. Who is harmed when I don't wear a seat belt? Well, unless my body flies out of the car and happens to hit another vehicle or human being, only myself. I agree with laws saying that parents should buckle in their children (duty of care). And I mostly agree with laws that make seat belts in cars mandatory (though my libertarian beliefs lead me to believe that a car company would have to be stupid not to install them anyways, simply because sales to educated [or common sense-using] consumers would drop). But telling me that, as an adult, I can't make up my own mind about my own safety is ridiculous.
Sure, there were 899 seat belt deaths in Indiana in 2006. Again, I'm all for safety. But when the government has to take care of us, we've lost everything that gives us free will, the essence of any free society.
I also oppose these laws from the standpoint of a law student. Generally speaking, I distrust laws criminalizing omission. There are times when such laws are necessary (requiring lifeguards to act to save drowning children, requiring parents to feed their children, and other scenarios where there is a duty to act). But criminalizing NOT acting for one's own good is government coercion. Think about it. Blacks defines coercion as "compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force". What happens if you choose not to wear your seat belt? Punishment by the state.
Perhaps the law is bad also because it encourages arbitrary enforcement. If I get pulled over in my Benz wearing a suit and listening to smooth jazz, I am probably less likely to recieve an actual citation than the poor black kid driving a beat-up Lincoln. Further, police may use this law as an excuse to pull over "suspicious" vehicles for a chance to get a whiff of that potentially pot-laced air. I am not saying that police are naturally corrupt, or that these scenarios will necessarily happen, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to see these problems in the law.
This is the latest in a string of government attempts to make us all better off by taking away our freedoms. It's the little things that count. This may seem minor (like surrendering trans-fats), but it preps us for losing more freedoms in the future. At some point we have to say, "Enough is enough; we can take care of ourselves."
I would love to get some feedback on this if you have a moment. Do you agree/disagree with my position?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The rhetorical ramblings of a student at Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington.
10 comments:
While I don't generally support paternalistic laws, I do support them in this kind of situation. Namely, when the default behavior is likely to cause harm to individuals, not because they actively choose the default behavior but because it is the default, the government is uniquely positioned to legislate behavior that will make individuals better off. Individuals can still choose the old default--not wearing a seatbelt--if they really want to, and face the somewhat minor consequences. (A ticket is a minor consequence; jail time would not be.)
I'd buy your argument if I thought that people were choosing not to wear seatbelts. But I don't buy that. Most people don't wear their seatbelts because they don't think about it, never got in the habit, etc. When a piece of legislation can influence individuals to act in a way that provably increases their welfare, pass that legislation. That's what governments do best.
i disagree. the liberty tom paine spoke of isn't diminished by the state acting to preserve your life in a common sense manner such as a seatbelt law.
and if the concern here is the proverbial slippery slope, this is shag carpeting.
if you want to subject yourself to undue risk of injury or death through the use a motor vehicle, there are plenty of other options available (atv's and crotch-rockets, among others).
I can see where both comments are coming from. Divine, what I am suggesting is that anybody that values their life would make seat belts a default without government interference. It would involve a shift in our behaviors, to be sure, and I might even support an economic incentive to wear seat belts (as if survival isn't enough of an incentive). But I philosophically disagree with government interference in places where pure common sense or good parenting would suffice. Carrots are good, sticks are bad. Even if the stick is as small as a traffic ticket.
First, what sort of economic incentive do you suggest? And who will pay for it? Carrots are nice, but sticks work better against the forces of inertia. Seriously--never underestimate the power of inertia to make people do irrational things.
The economic incentive could be based around the on-board computer in most cars. The same computers that cause a ringing when a seat is occupied with no seat belt could maintain a count of use. If the driver uses a seat belt every time, then the individual would recieve a tax break on their next car purchase. That way, no one pays for it. This is just one economic incentive. I'm sure professional policy makers could develop more.
I should point out that I don't like the incentive either. I don't want any government interference at all. I think survival is a pretty good incentive on its own, and those that don't take it can gamble with their own lives. Yes, inertia is a powerful force. But when enough people get hurt, eventually the rest learn the lesson. The only cost to the society is the loss of the people who chose to ignore safety.
I simply believe that Indiana was fine before this change in laws, and that all laws that are unnecessary waste tax dollars. New Hampshire, which has no seat belt laws, has the second lowest fatality rate in the nation.
The National Motorists Association has the following to say about seat belt laws:
"The NMA supports the contention that individuals should retain the freedom and responsibility to make choices affecting their own safety and the safety of their families. At each stage of the evolution of mandatory seatbelt laws we warned that this was an incremental process that would eventually lead to heavy handed enforcement practices and onerous penalties. Our predictions are proving correct.
"First it was child restraint laws because 'the children are not capable of making these decisions themselves and too many parents are irresponsible.' Next it was 'secondary' enforcement of belt laws, just as a means to 'encourage' the use of seatbelts. Fines are being increased, 'Primary' enforcement is giving police the excuse to pull anyone and everyone over on the pretext of a seatbelt violation. Thousands of roadblocks have been erected to force compliance with seatbelt laws. Violation points toward suspension of driver licenses and photo/video enforcement are the next likely escalations of this process.
"The NMA encourages seatbelt use, but it does not support mandatory seatbelt laws and the intrusive and punitive policies they spawn."
I don't think this debate will ever actually end. I am philosophically opposed to government interference, even in small cases like these. Many, perhaps most, believe that it is a small price to pay for "public safety".
While I am not "philosophically opposed to government interference," I basically agree with Ben's reasoning on this. If someone wants to do something that harms only themselves (I'm assuming that not wearing seat belts does not harm anyone else), why should we stop them? Despite being pretty liberal, I don't really see the case for mandatory seat belts laws (except for kids). Then again, even though I don't agree with the law, changing it would not be high on my political agenda.
Yeah, my campaign wouldn't be built on a platform of changing the seat belt law. This was more of a philosophical exercise. And I, of course, appreciate the input from everybody who joined in.
If we do not have mandatory seatbelt laws, we must certainly get rid of the ridiculous policies that a few states have that not wearing a seatbelt cannot be used as evidence of negligence. Colorado had that principle and I thought it was asinine. If I negligently hit someone at 15 mph, is it really my fault if they aren't wearing a seatbelt and get lacerations all over their face?
Of course, a statute mandating seat belts is a good way to establish a standard of care for torts.
ben nice post, this completely reminded me of the old Seinfeld skit about wearing helmets. The best line being: "The only thing dumber than the helmet is the helmet law, the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly, it’s not even trying to stop the cracking of the head that it’s in" kind of off topic, but definitely reminded me of your post
Here's the thing: if you get into an accident and you don't have insurance, I (a taxpayer) pay for your healthcare. If you don't wear your seatbelt, it costs me A LOT more to cover your healthcare. Therefore, even though seatbelt laws are total nanny-statism at its worst (see, e.g., that Seinfeld episode), they're fine with me. As long as the state pays for healthcare, I think it's fine to enforce seatbelt usage, ban smoking, etc...
Now, if you want to make an argument about keeping the state from paying for healthcare, I'm all ears, but that's a vastly different topic that's far more complicated.
Post a Comment