Mandatory Seat Belt Laws Violate Personal Liberty
Does the Paternalistic Government Know Better Than You?
Paternalism
With mandatory seat belts, the government decides that people should wear seat belts to increase individual safety. This legislation relinquishes the individual's right to choose for himself. While it is noble that the government cares about its citizens' safety, it goes too far. The government lacks the moral right to force safety on an individual. The individual should make this decision. Mandatory seat belt laws unfairly restrict individual liberty in the name of paternalism.
People will disagree because they think that seatbelts and safety are good things. While possibly true, this is just their personal viewpoint. They are morally entitled to embrace their viewpoint, but they should not force this viewpoint on others.
Objection
Some might argue that the government frequently infringes on individual liberty, and that we often do not consider these infringements unjust. For instance, we restrict an individual's right to drive as fast as he would like. However, this situation differs from the current case. We restrict an individual's right to speed because his speeding might harm other drivers. This restriction is morally just, since the restriction protects other drivers' right to life.
This case differs from the speeding case, however. Seatbelt usage only affects the seatbelt wearer. When an individual chooses to wear a seatbelt, he increases only his own safety. The individual does not, however, harm anybody else if he chooses not to wear a seat belt.
Interestingly, seat belt wearers might harm others. A seat belt wearer might feel safer because of the seat belt, which might cause him to drive faster or less carefully. This moral hazard problem would harm other drivers. To be most morally just, our government should leave the seat belt choice to the individual.
Reward vs. Punishment
Through legislation that fines people who do not wear seat belts, the government clearly infringes on an individual's liberty. Some have suggested that a reward for those who wear seat belts might be more fair than penalizing those who do not wear seat belts. Supposedly, this would just reward those who comply but not infringe on an individual's right to choose.
This logic is flawed. Regardless of whether the government uses penalties or rewards, it will still pressure individuals to wear seat belts. Morally, there is no distinction between penalties or rewards. Both paternally force safety on individuals, and both infringe on individual liberty.
Other Options
As an alternative, governments can suggest safety alternatives that will not infringe on individual liberty. For instance, we could require automobile companies to provide seat belts, or any other safety feature, in every vehicle. This option would give individuals the option to utilize a safety measure, without forcing them to do so.
Recommendation
Wearing seat belts may or may not be a good thing. Most people think that seat belts are great, while others think seat belts require a large amount of discomfort for a small protection against an unlikely incident. It is wrong for the government to act paternally, influencing people to wear seat belts because we think seat belts are better for them. Mandatory seat belt laws should be rescinded because they are morally improper.
Published by Scott Schlimmer
Keep thinking big and advancing the world's knowledge! View profile
-
Should You Have to Wear a Seatbelt?
My opinion on wearing a seat belt.
- How To Read Car Safety Ratings You hear it all the time..."5-Star Safety Rating'...."Superior Car Safery rating"...but, what exactly does it mean? And how does it impact your decision to buy a car?
- The Populist Protest: The Struggles the Populists Endured for Their Individual Fre... In the article "The Populist Protest", James Macgregor Burns argues that while the national parties, the Republicans and Democrats, had a monopoly on American politics, the populists struggled and fought hard for thei...
- Our Children Are Not Safe on Some School Buses Without Seat Belts There is no federal legislation about seat belts on school buses. The majority of school buses do not have seat belts.
- Healthy Eating to Avoid Cancer, Diabetes and Heart Disease Healthy eating can be confusing. What you need are tips to focus your efforts so you can lose weight, feel great and reduce your risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
- Mandatory Seat Belt Laws, When Will We Stop Legislating Personal Choice?
- Mandatory Seat Belt Laws; An Unrestrained Opinion on Restraints
- Mandatory Seat Belt Laws Save Lives
- Seat Belts on School Buses: Why the Law Should Change
- Mandatory Seatbelt Laws: Seat Belt Enforcement and Effectiveness
- Child Critically Injured by Seat Belt
- Seat Belt Laws
|
|
- If seat belts are required because they save the lives, should we require people to eat healthy?
- Should people be allowed to smoke?
- Where do we draw the line?
22 Comments
Post a Comment"As an alternative, governments can suggest safety alternatives that will not infringe on individual liberty. For instance, we could require automobile companies to provide seat belts, or any other safety feature, in every vehicle."
So, if I'm reading this article correctly...
Don't tell ME what to do for the safety of OTHERS, that's infringing on my rights. Tell OTHERS what to do for MY safety.
More childish drivel from a person who can't form two thoughts without the friction burning him. Especially love the use of "paternal" just thrown in as a buzz word.
Jebus
Driving is a privilege, and not a right.
I think that seat belts are great and serve a great purpose. I am against seat belt laws because it is not fair for our government to say that we are a free country and take away our right to take care or our selves in how we see fit. I think that it is pathetic that the government can make up a law and say it saves lives and then turn around and make a profit on it. Every individual has the right to choose to take care of themselves. It seems that if the government can get away with enforcing seat belt laws, they might as well be enforcing obesity and handing out tickets because one is too fat and is causing harm to their own body.
As I read the article I feel that it was a bit short sighted. When any of start to have the attitude that the decisions that we make don't affect others we are fooling ourselves. I teach driver's ed. and try to reinforce that fact that all of are decisions those around us in one way or the other. If you think your decision to wear a seat belt won't affect your wife/husband, kids or parents you're wrong. When you go through that windshield or get hurt seriously in any way someone is going to have to take care of you, for a short time or perhaps for a life time. It also affects the rest of us, because insurance rates go up because of serious injury or death that could have been kept to a minimum much of the time. Granted they won't always save our life, but I have seen too many people walk away from a crash when they shouldn't have because they did make the right choice. We need to stop just thinking about ourselves and our pride and think about others.
As long as we are willing to acc
Bruce raises an interesting question. Should it be illegal for a person to modify their car to make the airbag not deploy?
Because you'll definitely be thinking about your right to choose when you hit the windshield at 60 mph and snap your neck, right Norm?
Although it is true that seat belts have saved several lives, I personally know people that were saved because they were not wearing a seat belt. It makes no difference how many died because they were or were not wearing a seat belt; The whole point is - This is America, I am an American born and raised. I am also a Combat Veteran, I fought and many of my friends died fighting for our rights here in the U.S.A.. One of those rights is the Right to Choose. You do not have the right to dictate how I choose to live.
I see that no one is paying attention ... the point is not weather it saves any one or not ... but that if you give up one right they will just take another step tomarow ... befor you know it you have to aske if you are using the right tooth past ... I can not speak for the down under ... but the USA is based on fredom as long as you do not force or harm another ... and it should stay that way ... now let me put it to you another way ... do you think a moter bike is safe? ... bet most of you do not but they are still on the road ... well you are not belted to it so that takes care of your projectile point you where making! ... and in the USA most places you do not have to ware a helmit ... now tell me why do I have to wear a seat belt again ... look you do what you want with your seat belt but DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MINE!!!! ... if you have not noticed the US supreme cort just up held the right to have a gun ... where do you thing a seat belt ticket will go????
First observation: Mr Schlimmer uses "paternalistic" and "morals" an awful lot. What's that about?
Second observation: Using the same logic, there should be a switch so you can choose whether or not the airbags deploy - it is the right of the individual to decide.
Third observation: Seatbelts have been compulsory here in Australia since the 1970s. Fatalities have halved from previous recorded levels. Drivers with less than 20 years experience have always worn seatbelts and consider it normal. They feel uncomfortable without one.
Fourth observation: If I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, I wouldn't be here to right this.
God forbid, Mr Schlimmer, that one day you have to mourn the loss of a close family member, killed because they took a moral decision not to belt up while driving. If you still maintain your belief after that, then you'll have some credibility, not before.