09 Aug 04
Originally posted by shavixmirIt's not nonsense. You can dismiss it if you like (it's your right) but it's well substantiated by governmental, insurance and independent research agencies. And while they disagree on the magnitude of impact, they all agree it's in the several-billion-dollar area.
Don't give me that insurance nonsense.
The insurance company isn't going to diminish their profit because 37% of people in the US don't buckle up and have unnecessarily severe injuries during accidents...they are going to pass it on to me.
It's the same thing with helmet laws, but the impact is far smaller because there are fewer motorcycle riders, and the proportion of crashes where a helmet makes a substantial difference is somewhat smaller, but not insignificant. But it's fewer dollars and their insurance rates are not tied to mine, so it's less of a concern to me.
You certainly may continue to do whatever you want, but until your insurance rates are totally separate from mine, I support laws which penalize your behavior, because your behavior in turn penalizes me every month. If they were separate, then you would have my full endorsement.
Nemesio
09 Aug 04
Originally posted by nemesioWhat about smokers? Drinkers? Pregnant women? People living in cities? People who drive a lot? People who work on building sites? Nurses who work with sick people, firemen, policemen....soldiers?
It's not nonsense. You can dismiss it if you like (it's your right) but it's well substantiated by governmental, insurance and independent research agencies. And while they disagree on the magnitude of impact, they all agree it's in the several-billion-dollar area.
The insurance company isn't going to diminish their profit because 37% of people i ...[text shortened]... izes me every month. If they were separate, then you would have my full endorsement.
Nemesio
What about every single person with a vice? Every single person who, of their own accord, does something that might be slightly more dangerous than not doing it?
Parachute jumpers, sailors, para-gliders?
Where's this insurance monster going to end?
09 Aug 04
Originally posted by shavixmirPeople who live in cities do pay higher premiums in both auto insurance and health insurance. I don't know about you, but my insurance rates are in part tied to the amount of miles on my car. Presumably my rates would be higher if I drove more and lower if I drove less.
What about smokers? Drinkers? Pregnant women? People living in cities? People who drive a lot? People who work on building sites? Nurses who work with sick people, firemen, policemen....soldiers?
What about every single person with a vice? Every single person who, of their own accord, does something that might be slightly more dangerous than not doing ...[text shortened]...
Parachute jumpers, sailors, para-gliders?
Where's this insurance monster going to end?
People who work on building sites have separate insurance policies; their rates are totally independent from mine. Nurses, fireman, policeman and soldiers take risks on my behalf; their risk is my responsibility and I believe that every cent of my taxes that goes to them is well spent. And, if I could, I would reallocate quite a bit more from the stupid wastes of taxes that exist in this country.
There are all sorts of "high risk" clauses in insurance policies that limit pay out to those who have what we think of as risky vices. Many have supplemental insurance for which they pay through the nose, but protects them more fully. And I daresay that there are far fewer parachute jumpers than drivers of cars.
You are working on the assumption that driving a car is a right. It isn't. It's a privilige and with it comes responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is having insurance. Another is buckling your seatbelt. Another is driving safely. It's my right to expect that you are going to buckle up, not drink and drive, and obey traffic signs. If you don't like the rules, don't assume the mantle of responsibility expected of you. Take public transit. I never take it, but my taxes pay for it and I am glad that other people have the ability to take advantage of it. Use a taxi, bike ride, or work out of your home. But don't expect me to pick up the tab for your fares, bicycle, or electricity bill like you do for your irresponsible behavior.
If a hanglider wants to not have a parachute (or whatever they have), then it's their business and it has a negligble effect on me. If it's a handful of dollars a year, I would be surprised (if I were a hanglider, obviously I would have much more stake in this). Billions of dollars annually? I am footing a big tab each month, and this is not in dispute across independently reporting agencies (across countries in fact).
Now, smokers and drinkers? This is an interesting question and deserves another thread. I certainly resent having to pay more money in my taxes because other people are so irresponsible with their behavior. And I have no doubt that this will one day be challenged in court.
But the fact is, if every other vice in the world had no law, but not wearing a seatbelt did, you are still expected to follow the law or challenge it. Ignore it? That's lazy philosophy: "It shouldn't exist so I will act is if it doesn't." Bah. It can start there (i.e., not wearing your seatbelt), but after that, the ball has been in your court. Fight it in through the judicial system! Stand up for what you believe! I support your right to do that!! Use your example of what you feel is the inconsistent application of the law to your advantage! Don't convince me, convince the legal system! I can't remit your bill (and as yet you haven't convinced me that I should).
Nemesio
09 Aug 04
Originally posted by shavixmirThe state is not only there to protect you and me from one another.
I got a fine for driving without a seatbelt last year. I refused to pay it. The state is here to protect me from you and you from me, not me from myself.
Now, I disagree with the law, I disagree with obeying laws I disagree with and I sure as hell don't agree with a law which protects me from myself. To me it's either they just want more money (and t ...[text shortened]... form my behaviour, so that I'll be a good little puppy and do what Dr. Government tells me.
On a more abstract level the state is also there to protects its assets, among those its inhabitants, as you are young and healthy and have relatives that care for you -you’re net value is relatively high.
Seatbelts save thousands of lives for people who can go on being productive, and what is more important from an economic viewpoint it saves even more injuries - injuries that would need hospital treatment and sometimes even care for life. All in all seatbelts saves money for society. Apart from that it saves people from the misery of loosing their relatives - but I’m not sure that’s the rationale behind societies demand that you wear your seat belt.
There are many examples of society applying that form of rationale, Road traffic acts, Drug enforcement acts etc. Some places the state governs peoples behaviour more strict than others, I think it’s a question of political standpoint if you like it or not.
You touches upon a completely different thing when you say that you don’t want to obey laws that you disagree with. Most people can come up with a law that they think is completely stupid. However if it exist then there is a good chance that the majority of the population thinks otherwise. Some people have quite frightening definitions of what should be permitted.
Basically the laws of a country should make the life more tolerable for the majority without bothering the minority to much.
If you think that it’s your minority right to drive without a seatbelt then so be it, but you’re not getting my support - I say pay the bill, stay out of jail and enjoy the summer.
10 Aug 04
I have to jump in here. Just because a majority thinks a law is just does not mean it is. There have been and are lots of laws that most people think are wonderful that are oppressive, unjust, malicious, or stupid.
On one level, the first step to fighting that law is civil disobedience, Rosa Parks being the quintessential example. However, for Shav to be like Rosa, he has to take it to the next level. She got a $14 dollar fine, but she didn't pay it and there was all manner of support through the boycott in Montgomery. Ultimately the Supreme Court found the segregation law unConstitutional. And of course people were scared because there was lost revenue in the bus system and a law which made them feel safe and superior was being challenged. There was all manner of violence and intimidation because, in their hearts, they knew that the law was questionable. What they would have loved was for Rosa to say, "I think the law is crap and I'm not going to do anything about it," because that's easy to fight.
Shav needs to take his fight to the next level. Boycott driving and get his friends to do it to. Hurt the gas companies. Hurt the insurance companies. Take it to the courts. Find a lawyer. Whatever it takes.
In any event, whether or not Shav wants to be productive, well that's his business. The state has no right to dictate that I have a moral obligation to be productive; it's my right to pursue happiness in the way I see fit. If that means being lazy, then that's my right, as long as my laziness doesn't carry with it a high price tag for other people.
Nemesio
10 Aug 04
Originally posted by nemesioNow did I say what you imply by quoting as an example an "oppressive, unjust, malicious" racial segregation law ?
I have to jump in here. Just because a majority thinks a law is just does not mean it is. There have been and are lots of laws that most people think are wonderful that are oppressive, unjust, malicious, or stupid.
On one level, the first step to fighting that law is civil disobedience, Rosa Parks being the quintessential example. However, for Shav t ...[text shortened]... t, as long as my laziness doesn't carry with it a high price tag for other people.
Nemesio
No I did not - what I said was that "Basically the laws of a country should make the life more tolerable for the majority without bothering the minority to much."
Lets try to stay focused.
Did I chalenge yours or Shavixmirs right to be lazy (however that entered the discussion) ?
No I did not - what I said was that a society that provides healthcare for those who injures themselves in traffic has a legitimate right to try to minimize the number of citizens doing just that.
10 Aug 04
Scheel, I think we are agreeing more than perhaps you believe. First, where we disagree:
You wrote the following:
The state is not only there to protect you and me from one another. On a more abstract level the state is also there to protects its assets, among those its inhabitants...
You also wrote:
Seatbelts save thousands of lives for people who can go on being productive
I read (and perhaps I misread) that you are implicitly stating that a citizen has an obligation to be productive. The state has no obligation or right to protect someone from themselves because they want them to be an asset to the community. Their reward for being productive comes from the company they work for in the form of a paycheck. The state is there to protect a person from being rewarded of penalized unjustly.
If people want to do stupid things, that's their right, as long as I don't have to foot the tab. Productivity (the presence or absence of laziness) is irrelevant. If there were a system in place where he and others who want to pay separate "No Seatbelt Insurance," I would be the first to fight for his right not to wear a seatbelt. It's his life! However, because we share (or would share if he lived here or I there) equal responsibility in insurance, I have the expectation that he would share equal responsibility for trying to minimize the expense. Productivity? From a governmental standpoint, I don't care if he sits on a couch all day, just as long as I don't pay for it.
Perhaps we agree and you chose a few bad words or phrases to express what you meant, or maybe I just misread it.
Now, where I think we agree.
You wrote:
Basically the laws of a country should make the life more tolerable for the majority without bothering the minority to much.
Sure, basically the laws should do these things. Shav's point, I suspect, is that the seatbelt law doesn't make the majority's life more tolerable and it bothers the minority too much. I disagree on both fronts.
The point of the Rosa Parks example (as an oppressive law that the majority held as just) was to demonstrate how different Rosa and Shav have handled the situation. Obviously, the tone and content of Shav's original argument clearly stated that he felt oppressed by "the MAN" and that it was unfair and restricted his rights, and so forth. So, too, did Rosa Parks feel. The difference was in how they approached their respective penalizations. I think that we are agreeing here. I was expanding upon your point that, if he felt that the majority is being unjust, he should prove it.
I am sorry if I appeared to be disagreeing with this essential point.
You wrote:
...a society that provides healthcare for those who injure themselves in traffic has a legitimate right to try to minimize the number of citizens doing just that.
I think you were clearer in this sentence and I agree 100%.
Nemesio
10 Aug 04
Originally posted by nemesioYou are asking me to change the system?
People who live in cities do pay higher premiums in both auto insurance and health insurance. I don't know about you, but my insurance rates are in part tied to the amount of miles on my car. Presumably my rates would be higher if I drove more and lower if I drove less.
People who work on building sites have separate insurance policies; their rates are ...[text shortened]... stem! I can't remit your bill (and as yet you haven't convinced me that I should).
Nemesio
You are asking me to change laws which favour insurance companies? One of the most powerful and influential organs in existence?
Imagine they legalised drugs and gave them away free. Nobody would have to stoop to petty crime to finance their habit. Nobody would need to insure themselves against petty crime. Now, who on earth is forcing the governments hands do you think? 70% of crime is drugs related (in Holland anyway), that would be one hell of a loss of income.
Now, these insurance companies keep illogical laws in place to keep their profits up. This means they need things kept illegal, they need people to be scared and basically this makes them very powerful parasites on the back of humanity.
You must be insured for health, you must be insured against cars, you must be insured in case you damage something, you must be insured in case you die. That's a hell of a lot of insurance.
And you are asking me to change all this?
I see two methods of changing such matters:
1. a mass stop of production.
Not much chance of this. People hardly demonstrate to stop blatant evils in the world, so the chances of them following me as I chase windmills is not very large.
2. Violence.
I'm sharpening my swiss army knife as I type.
10 Aug 04
Originally posted by shavixmirNo one is making you take out most of these insurances. You are legally obliged to have a minimum insurance cover when driving a car, but there is no obligation on you to have contents insurance, buildings insurance, health insurance or life assurance.
You must be insured for health, you must be insured against cars, you must be insured in case you damage something, you must be insured in case you die. That's a hell of a lot of insurance.
The difference between cars and the others? You can wreck someone elses vehicle/property with your car or, worse, mow some poor unfortunate down. With the others, if you don't have them, only you and yours will be affected, which is your choice. If you had so much money in the bank that you could replace all your property following flooding, then you wouldn't need insurance. I can't afford to replace everything I own, rebuild my house or provide for my family, so must rely on insurance.
If you have a mortgage, the mortgage company may require you to have buildings insurance, to protect their investment, but if you could rebuild without requiring insurance (lucky git!) you probably wouldn't have a mortgage in the first place.
If you do break something expensive and don't have insurance then that will hurt financially. If you have a collision without a seatbelt, that will just hurt, if you are lucky.
10 Aug 04
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't know whether it's because your upset at yourself that you misread my post, or perhaps it's an intentional smokescreen in order to not address what I said. Maybe you thought that with a bunch of freethinkers on the site, you'd get a lot of support and so far you haven't and as a result you're grumpy.
blah blah blah...whine...blah blah
But I resent being misrepresented.
Look. I hate insurance companies and governments as much as the next guy. I read a lot of libertarian stuff, and some of it I quite like. I read a lot of pro-government/big business stuff, and most of it gets me irritated. Based on what you have written in the past, I think we'd probably agree on 85% of social issues.
But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sometimes lawmakers pass reasonable laws. Sometimes insurance companies make policies that benefit the customers. I don't trust insurance companies or governments, but when what they say is substantiated over and over and over by independent sources, ones unaffected by lobbies, I give my opponent his due. "Thank you for passing a good law, for once," I say. Does it make me less vigilant? No. Do I now trust the government? No. But I give credit, even to those I dislike, when credit is due.
And, I am the first to change my opinion when a compelling argument is presented.
Here is the essence of my argument. Given that driving is not a right but a privilige and a responsibility, I expect that, to protect me, my properties and thus my happiness, all drivers should be qualified to drive (i.e. be licensed) and we should all be protected against misfortune, irresponsibility or malice (i.e., have insurance). Knowing that our actions pose both personal and financial risk to other people, along with the privilige of being able to drive, we accept a mantle of responsibility which impinges some of our perceived liberties. To protect ourselves and each other, there should be universal laws about the way we should drive (i.e., rules of the road), and we should all have insurance and bear a financial responsibility for it commensurate with our actions (i.e., lower risk through minimized use or responsible behavior leads to lower insurance and vice versa). And we should expect that all people engaging in this privilige will do whatever is reasonable to minimize this financial responsibility or corporate risk (i.e., obey the laws of the road), and, if not, they shall be subject to penalties (i.e., receive a ticket). End argument.
Show me how this argument is unreasonable, or if you agree with it, show me how the law regarding seatbelts is inconsistent with it. Convince me that your right to be unbuckled trumps my right to expect it. In so doing, you must demonstrate the invalidity in the multiferious studies from independent sources which show congruence between lower insurance rates with higher seatbelt use. Or, that if those studies are true, that the financial impact is negligible.
I think if you do this, you will persuade other people to recognize that their basic liberties are being denied, too. You won't have to "take out" any one. You will have a band of supporters, thus your own lobby, and undoubtably the law will change. And, if you do show me this, I will be the first to march with you.
Nemesio
10 Aug 04
Originally posted by kody magicDo you need insurance to ride a bicycle?
No one is making you take out most of these insurances. You are legally obliged to have a minimum insurance cover when driving a car, but there is no obligation on you to have contents insurance, buildings insurance, health insurance or life assurance.
The difference between cars and the others? You can wreck someone elses vehicle/property with your ...[text shortened]... financially. If you have a collision without a seatbelt, that will just hurt, if you are lucky.
Do you need insurance to jog? Surely that's movement at an unsafe rate as well!
Did you know that more people die jogging than shagging? Joggers surely should pay higher insurances than fuckers? Right?
What if I'm wondering about drunk? I may wreck more things than when I'm sober.
When I'm stoned I'm 10 fold more mellow than when I'm sober. Do I get reductions for being stoned?
10 Aug 04
Originally posted by nemesioWell...
I don't know whether it's because your upset at yourself that you misread my post, or perhaps it's an intentional smokescreen in order to not address what I said. Maybe you thought that with a bunch of freethinkers on the site, you'd get a lot of support and so far you haven't and as a result you're grumpy.
But I resent being misrepresented.
Lo ...[text shortened]... law will change. And, if you do show me this, I will be the first to march with you.
Nemesio
Let's see. Say you are over-taking someone on the motorway and the person you are over-taking doesn't check her mirrors (oh wait...sorry Pradtf...that's probably sexist), let me re-phrase it, the old man you are over-taking doesn't check his mirrors (oh wait...sorry, that's probably ageist...) WHATEVER....SOMEBODY doesn't check THEIR mirrors and throws their car out in front of you....
Now. I may be speeding. I may not have a seatbelt on. I may be drunk. I may be stoned. I may be having the best blow job of my life....BUT...IT'S NOT MY FAULT.
But I get blamed anyway. I rammed the back of their car. That makes me at fault (in Holland anyway, I really wouldn't know what the rules of the road are anywhere else).
So, even if the person I rammed was drunk, speeding, wasn't wearing a seatbelt, was stoned and was having a better blow job than I'd ever received, if I rammed him from behind...it's my fault.
Why?
Because it makes it so much simpler for insurance companies. We all have to be insured, and it saves a lot of money if you can easily point the finger of blame.
The day these evil bastards on the road have to pay more insurance because they don't know how to drive is the day I'll sit back and won't mind paying fines for driving without a seatbelt.
End of argument. End of bloody story.
Seriously, I could kill to make my point and would gladly sit out my sentence. Which, would be paid by you, the taxpayer....
It's not like freedom is on the agenda anyways. Just the will of the insurance companies.
11 Aug 04
Originally posted by shavixmirYou're a driver?
Well...
Let's see. Say you are over-taking someone on the motorway and the person you are over-taking doesn't check her mirrors (oh wait...sorry Pradtf...that's probably sexist), let me re-phrase it, the old man you are over-taking doesn't check his mirrors (oh wait...sorry, that's probably ageist...) WHATEVER....SOMEBODY doesn't check THEIR mirro ...[text shortened]... ..
It's not like freedom is on the agenda anyways. Just the will of the insurance companies.
There is only that rare, 1 in a thousand chance, that the person ramming from behind is not guilty or part guilty for the incident. Driving safely requires safe distance and safe speeds.
Overtaking should not be done at an excessive speed compared to the vehicle being overtaken. With both vehicles going at no more than ten kilometers an hour difference in velocity there is next to no chance for an accident except if that person were to do it when nearly level with you. At that point you would be ramming them from the side...
Overtake at an excessive speed and you are not a safe driver...
MÅ¥HÅRM
11 Aug 04
Originally posted by shavixmirNemesio wrote, and begged Shav to respond to:
More blah blah blah
Show me how [the argument articulated above] is unreasonable, or if you agree with it, show me how the law regarding seatbelts is inconsistent with it. Convince me that your right to be unbuckled trumps my right to expect it. In so doing, you must demonstrate the invalidity in the multiferious studies from independent sources which show congruence between lower insurance rates with higher seatbelt use. Or, that if those studies are true, that the financial impact is negligible.
You replied and quoted to my post, but you didn't address it at all. I'll reiterate: I recognize that insurance companies suck. I recognize that governments suck. We agree. Ok? However, the seatbelt law is one of those few laws that actually makes sense. It makes sense because it protects conscientious people from having to pick up the tab left by inconsiderate, dangerous ones. I've outlined why (several times actually). You keep throwing up a smokescreen of obscure examples (and, at least in America, that last one doesn't hold water) and I keep asking you to demonstrate why your right to be irresponsible trumps my right to expect it, especially since I am footing the bill.
I have a feeling that your stubbornness to address the issue is related to your current plight.
Nemesio
P.S. Your ridiculous example doesn't prove anything anyway. Insurance rates are calculated by actuaries to reflect the probability of things happening. Built in to that is a degree of error for the improbable sorts of accidents. Your example would rank among the improbable sorts. And of the probability of greater injuries to people not wearing seatbelts, it's nice and high. Hence, higher rates for me, even though I'm responsibile.
11 Aug 04
3 edits
Originally posted by shavixmirshav,
It's not like freedom is on the agenda anyways. Just the will of the insurance companies.
nemesio has really presented good arguments and these 2 points are significant:
1) the majority do not determine the justness of a law
2) driving is a privilege not a right
it makes little difference whether only 1 person in the US thinks that seatbelts should be worn - it doesn't change the laws of physics. driving is something we are supposed to earn - and we need to show a certain responsibility to maintain this privilege.
as i understand it, your license problems are coming not from poor driving, but just from not paying attention to a sequence of events that needed to be executed. this doesn't make the seatbelt law a bad one. the seatbelts on motorcycles really doesn't seem to make sense - though you might have argued why it is not mandatory on buses? however, that is like saying you shouldn't be convicted for a bank robbery just because you were caught and everyone else wasn't.
i understand you are upset with the state of things, but since it is unlikely you have gathered enough of a force to do a significant protest (unless you have an unusually skilled lawyer at your disposal), surely it would be a better idea to just pay the fine instead of get into deeper trouble and get even angrier in the process.
in friendship,
prad