As a left libertarian, I have a hard time arguing against seatbelt laws. As in, I know they aren’t consistent with my ideology, but the outcomes of having these laws are so much better than not having them. The only thing that I can say against them is that they’re one of the more commonly used bullshit pretexts for initiating traffic stops. I rationalize this trade off and violation of ideals by pointing out that the government has created a fucked up transportation market by enforcing car centrism, and until we can unfuck that, we need to deal with the side effects.
I think the argument is more about the impact on others. If you aren’t wearing a seatbelt, you become a projectile that can harm others - both in your car and outside of your car.
In general, I agree that ideologically it’s a little uncomfortable to dictate personal choices, but when it comes to road safety I think the government has reasonable grounds to enforce certain expectations (same with things like insurance.)
It is uncomfortable to give police more pretenses to stop people but road safety perhaps is one of those things we could have a hypothetical “good police force” take care of.
Government dictating that citizens MUST give money to a private company who then gives money to the politicians who make that mandate is wildly immoral. Insurance should be a government program.
Insurance as a whole should be a sort of “public union” thing. No profit motive, everyone who participates in something like driving has to pay some fee for insurance, maybe along with things like registration. Ideally along with massive improvements to public transit.
The concept of private insurance under capitalism seems at odds with itself. You have to pay out a good chunk less then you take in to turn a profit, and the best way to do that is be useless and fuck over your customers. (With health - Cigna was supposed to cover my top surgery. Pay for it up front be reimbursed reimbursed later. Then, later, it turns out that my employer specifically included a rider that excluded it. I’ve talked elsewhere about how I’ve paid CareCredit back.)
I don’t know if we should nationalize auto insurance without doing health insurance first though. Would the government be negotiating deals with mechanics? I think hospitals have structures that are easier to unionize and generally smarter/kinder folks than the general population. Mechanics tend to skew the type that’d get upset over navigating fender bender payouts with Uncle Sam, probably going to be harder to get to understand that their labor rights are good things.
Ehhhh… Traffic stops are more often than not excuses to fish for other, more serious violations or initiate a civil asset forfeiture. It’s actually one of the big reasons I’m hugely pro-transit and anti-car-centrism, because it robs the state of a huge excuse for initiating police contacts.
There is this meme about:
Rhode Island state rep, 2011.
Don’t forget airbags have also killed people.
As a left libertarian, I have a hard time arguing against seatbelt laws. As in, I know they aren’t consistent with my ideology, but the outcomes of having these laws are so much better than not having them. The only thing that I can say against them is that they’re one of the more commonly used bullshit pretexts for initiating traffic stops. I rationalize this trade off and violation of ideals by pointing out that the government has created a fucked up transportation market by enforcing car centrism, and until we can unfuck that, we need to deal with the side effects.
I think the argument is more about the impact on others. If you aren’t wearing a seatbelt, you become a projectile that can harm others - both in your car and outside of your car.
In general, I agree that ideologically it’s a little uncomfortable to dictate personal choices, but when it comes to road safety I think the government has reasonable grounds to enforce certain expectations (same with things like insurance.)
It is uncomfortable to give police more pretenses to stop people but road safety perhaps is one of those things we could have a hypothetical “good police force” take care of.
Government dictating that citizens MUST give money to a private company who then gives money to the politicians who make that mandate is wildly immoral. Insurance should be a government program.
Insurance as a whole should be a sort of “public union” thing. No profit motive, everyone who participates in something like driving has to pay some fee for insurance, maybe along with things like registration. Ideally along with massive improvements to public transit.
The concept of private insurance under capitalism seems at odds with itself. You have to pay out a good chunk less then you take in to turn a profit, and the best way to do that is be useless and fuck over your customers. (With health - Cigna was supposed to cover my top surgery. Pay for it up front be reimbursed reimbursed later. Then, later, it turns out that my employer specifically included a rider that excluded it. I’ve talked elsewhere about how I’ve paid CareCredit back.)
I don’t know if we should nationalize auto insurance without doing health insurance first though. Would the government be negotiating deals with mechanics? I think hospitals have structures that are easier to unionize and generally smarter/kinder folks than the general population. Mechanics tend to skew the type that’d get upset over navigating fender bender payouts with Uncle Sam, probably going to be harder to get to understand that their labor rights are good things.
Ehhhh… Traffic stops are more often than not excuses to fish for other, more serious violations or initiate a civil asset forfeiture. It’s actually one of the big reasons I’m hugely pro-transit and anti-car-centrism, because it robs the state of a huge excuse for initiating police contacts.
Where’d you get a picture off all my elder family members in one place!? (j/k)