Seatbelts and Socialism »
Walter Williams hits another home run with his latest article, Click It or Ticket. The article that shares the title with the popular US program to give tickets to those who don't wear their seatbelts hits that sweet spot that illustrates that we aren't living in a true free society, but a socialist one that cares more about the greater group than the rights of the individual.
Could an individual die if they don't wear their seat belt and are involved in a wrekc? Sure. Is that my business? No. If you drive and choose not to wear a seat belt, so be it. I have the same choice for me and my family. But to impose that will upon me for the simple sake of doing so? That's ridiculous. Even if you compare the "cost" of providing medical care to someone who doesn't wear a seat belt, you're on the wrong path as you've left out the cost of implementing such a program - take away that marketing budget and I'd suspect that the numbers would be just about the same.
So how about it, America? Why is it that we are governed to the lowest common denominator, and more specifically, that we've grown to stand for it?
Comments (4)
What if you choose not to wear a seatbelt in the rear of someone's car, and the impact of a crash sends you flying forward and injures or kills the person in front? Or if you are thrown through your windshield and injure or kill a person outside of your car? What happens to that person's rights?
Here in the UK it's mandatory for every person in a car to wear a seatbelt. Here in the UK our ratio of fatalities in car accidents is 40% of yours: http://www.factbook.net/EGRF_Regional_analyses_HMCs.htm
Posted by Peter Gasston | June 21, 2005 6:34 PM
I say, "go ahead, heap on the socialism." I appreciate a government that is willing to do what it can to help the least of these, my fellow Americans. Besides, the seat belt law seems quite a bit more humane than other government intrusions such as the Patriot Act.
Posted by Karl | June 21, 2005 9:05 PM
The point isn't specifically seat belts. The seat belt law may very well make sense. So may a dozen other laws. So may every law every created if viewed in a certain light. The problem is that it never stops - it is the proverbial slippery slope, and once you've made one decision that seems like a good one, you cannot in good conscience vote against a similar decision that seems to make sense to another group.
Is there a potential cost to people other than yourself if you don't wear a seat belt? Sure. There is a potential cost to nearly everything. That isn't the point any more than the specifics of the seat belt law are the point.
By my thinking, I would much rather give up a little perceived saftey rather than have the government decide to keep heaping their helpfulness on me over and over again. The legislative branch has been making laws for somewhere over 200 years - you'd think the need for them to continue working full-time towards such a goal would be alleviated by now.
The exact opposite is true, as by many politician's admission, their job in many cases is to continue to make sure that they have a job. That's just insane.
Posted by Chad Everett | June 21, 2005 9:18 PM
We Australian's find this American attitude toward seatbelts amazing. It cost me money if the hospitals are full of people unnecessarily maimed on the roads. It puts my insurance up. Same goes for smoking related illness. The medical industry would need to be a lot smaller and less costly to the larger community without all those sick and damaged people.
Ahh but there’s the rub. It is an industry, after all, that needs us to keep getting sick and hurting ourselves in car accidents. Some would be out of work otherwise. Pharmaceutical and insurance companies would also loose out.
We watch American movies in amazement as no one ever seems to wear a seatbelt unless it is important to the plot somehow. When the hero wants to put the baddy through the windscreen he buckles up first.
Posted by Kym Lardner | June 4, 2006 3:33 AM