On Libertarianism: Seat Belt Laws
continuing a trend of both late and John Stossel-related entries...
If I had to name my typical views on government or politics, I am probably most similar to libertarians in terms of how I think laws should be made in a country. A typical response to this is, "You are one of those crazy people who want to legalize drugs?!" That response is a good example of how I usually hate to classify myself as anything. Just because one shares the views of many of a groups ideas does not mean he or she shares all of them. I take each issue separately.
Anyhow, I don't want to be here all day, so I'm going to start with a simple example -- seat belt laws.
Now, I hold that a government's job is to legislate laws that protect society and keep it from falling apart. Now I am also a moral absolutist. I feel that murder is wrong. But I feel that murder is wrong because of the intent. Killing, in and of itself is not wrong. Murder is killing with malicious intent to harm another. I believe that feelings of hatred mixed with desire to harm another is wrong, whether or not the harm is actually done. Yet, despite believing this, I do not think it is wise or proper for a government to judge a person for his or her thoughts and intentions. Why not? Because until the actual act is done, society is not effected. In other words, I have a libertarianistic view that if something does not cause harm to another member of society, then it should not be a matter for the government to deal with. Government is not supposed to enforce personal morality, but rather public morality -- at least in my view. (Religious bodies and families and the individuals themselves are who should be enforcing personal morality.)
There are also laws that a government should make that aren't particularly moral ones. For example, speeding in one's automobile. Is wanting to get somewhere faster a wrong/evil thought? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Certainly, it is bad to disregard other people's safety, even if it is okay -- not that it necessarily is -- to not care about one's own safety. But I do not think that everyone who speeds goes through the though process, "I don't care that my driving might harm others." No, I think most speeders, most of all Americans, are probably innocent of such thoughts. They rather think that their driving faster is not harmful to anyone else, because they are good drivers, right? But here, I think that, though not a case of direct morality, a government should have driving laws. Because such laws do protect society -- not from evil, simply from danger. (What those driving laws should be is entirely another debate.)
So onto seat belts. Here is a law that for the life of me I cannot understand. How is my not wearing an uncomfortable safety harness thingy personally immoral -- which shouldn't matter to a government anyhow in my view -- publicly immoral or even harmful to others in an amoral fashion? Why the heck am I fined for not wearing something to supposedly protect my life?
I should point out that I do wear my seat belt. I don't particularly like the thought of having my face ripped to bloody shreds when projected through a windshield. Nor do I think it loving of me to not care what happens to myself when other people in the world care about my well-being. Yet despite these thoughts, I hate the idea of the government placing a fine on me if I do not have one on. What business of theirs is it? It seems to me just another way for them to make money on frivolous things.
I have heard arguments -- which I do not buy -- that non-seat-belted persons cost the country lots of money by getting themselves injured. Well, in an ideal world the person who did not buckle his seat belt should be the one to pay for that. If this were a country with national health care, I could be content with seat belt laws, since my tax money would be paying for all those people with windshield-ripped-up faces. But we do not have national health care here, so why the seat belt laws?
(Note to mood observers: My mood is not at all due to anything anyone may have said in recent LJ comments, nor to anything I have said in recent LJ comments, nor to any change of events in certain important matters, but only my natural tendency to mood swing such that the unchanged matters are currently effecting me more than they may have been at some other time when my mood might have been "miffed" or "irate" or "peeved" or "bitter" or "decreasingly angry" or just plain "angry".)
If I had to name my typical views on government or politics, I am probably most similar to libertarians in terms of how I think laws should be made in a country. A typical response to this is, "You are one of those crazy people who want to legalize drugs?!" That response is a good example of how I usually hate to classify myself as anything. Just because one shares the views of many of a groups ideas does not mean he or she shares all of them. I take each issue separately.
Anyhow, I don't want to be here all day, so I'm going to start with a simple example -- seat belt laws.
Now, I hold that a government's job is to legislate laws that protect society and keep it from falling apart. Now I am also a moral absolutist. I feel that murder is wrong. But I feel that murder is wrong because of the intent. Killing, in and of itself is not wrong. Murder is killing with malicious intent to harm another. I believe that feelings of hatred mixed with desire to harm another is wrong, whether or not the harm is actually done. Yet, despite believing this, I do not think it is wise or proper for a government to judge a person for his or her thoughts and intentions. Why not? Because until the actual act is done, society is not effected. In other words, I have a libertarianistic view that if something does not cause harm to another member of society, then it should not be a matter for the government to deal with. Government is not supposed to enforce personal morality, but rather public morality -- at least in my view. (Religious bodies and families and the individuals themselves are who should be enforcing personal morality.)
There are also laws that a government should make that aren't particularly moral ones. For example, speeding in one's automobile. Is wanting to get somewhere faster a wrong/evil thought? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Certainly, it is bad to disregard other people's safety, even if it is okay -- not that it necessarily is -- to not care about one's own safety. But I do not think that everyone who speeds goes through the though process, "I don't care that my driving might harm others." No, I think most speeders, most of all Americans, are probably innocent of such thoughts. They rather think that their driving faster is not harmful to anyone else, because they are good drivers, right? But here, I think that, though not a case of direct morality, a government should have driving laws. Because such laws do protect society -- not from evil, simply from danger. (What those driving laws should be is entirely another debate.)
So onto seat belts. Here is a law that for the life of me I cannot understand. How is my not wearing an uncomfortable safety harness thingy personally immoral -- which shouldn't matter to a government anyhow in my view -- publicly immoral or even harmful to others in an amoral fashion? Why the heck am I fined for not wearing something to supposedly protect my life?
I should point out that I do wear my seat belt. I don't particularly like the thought of having my face ripped to bloody shreds when projected through a windshield. Nor do I think it loving of me to not care what happens to myself when other people in the world care about my well-being. Yet despite these thoughts, I hate the idea of the government placing a fine on me if I do not have one on. What business of theirs is it? It seems to me just another way for them to make money on frivolous things.
I have heard arguments -- which I do not buy -- that non-seat-belted persons cost the country lots of money by getting themselves injured. Well, in an ideal world the person who did not buckle his seat belt should be the one to pay for that. If this were a country with national health care, I could be content with seat belt laws, since my tax money would be paying for all those people with windshield-ripped-up faces. But we do not have national health care here, so why the seat belt laws?
(Note to mood observers: My mood is not at all due to anything anyone may have said in recent LJ comments, nor to anything I have said in recent LJ comments, nor to any change of events in certain important matters, but only my natural tendency to mood swing such that the unchanged matters are currently effecting me more than they may have been at some other time when my mood might have been "miffed" or "irate" or "peeved" or "bitter" or "decreasingly angry" or just plain "angry".)