Seatbelt Laws

“Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” With these words, philosopher John Stuart Mill established the Harm Principle, which notes that the “Only purpose for which individuals can be divested of their liberty is to prevent harm to others.” Because I adhere to this principle, I oppose seatbelt laws. First, the right to individual liberty does not permit the adoption of seatbelt laws. All individuals are born with three natural rights (life, liberty, and property), simply by virtue of being human, and not because the government chooses to grant these rights to its citizens. The reasons that states exist is to protect natural right; this is the only incentive for society to form. Protection is twofold: First, the state must not violate natural rights, even to help the citizens, and second, they must protect citizens from external harm. Since protection can cause violations of natural rights to liberty, however, there must be a substantial risk of harms to others in order for a violation of liberty to be justified. If there is a small or rare risk and the action is not done with the intent of harming others, the restriction of liberty is unjust. The implication of this is that seatbelt laws are unjust because they are targeted at preventing individuals from causing harm to themselves. This is a restriction of the right to liberty and of the Harm Principle; people have a right to do whatever they please to themselves as long as they do not pose a malicious, substantial threat to others. Second, according to the principle of liberty, the state cannot force individuals to harm themselves. Seatbelts cause frontal injuries to the muscles, ribs, and sternum, can cause head injuries, can cause internal damage to the intestines, can fracture and dislocate arms, and in some cases, can strangle or slice off the heads of individuals [1]. The difference between these harms and the harms caused by not wearing belts as that those harms are done by free choice while these harms are imposed by the state. Since the state cannot force individuals to harm themselves, the state is acting in an unjust manner by implementing seat belt laws. Third, seatbelt laws have caused more accidents and have caused more pedestrian and cyclist deaths. A study funded by the U.S. government noted the following : Restrained (wearing seat belt) 2002 deaths: 12,719 2006 deaths: 12,874 Unrestrained (not wearing seat belt) 2002 deaths: 18,269 2006 deaths: 16,037 Source: NCSA, FARS 2002-2005 (Final), 2006 Source 2 There are two important things to notice from this data. First, while my opponent may claim that it proves his case since there are fewer restrained deaths, in reality the difference is 3163 deaths, a number that is statistically insignificant. In fact, it demonstrates that seatbelts aren’t making a significant difference in saving lives. Second, the fact that there was a 10% decrease in deaths among individuals who did not wear seatbelts while there was simultaneously an increase in deaths among individuals who did wear seatbelts indicates an insidious harm of seatbelt laws, namely that seatbelt laws cause individuals to be more likely to engage in risky driving and thus experience injury and death [2]. This is because they feel that the seatbelt will protect them from harm, so they are not disposed to being careful. My opponent may attempt to claim that this result is simply a byproduct of the fact that more people are wearing seatbelts, but this is not the case because another measure indicates that seatbelt laws have caused people to become riskier drivers, namely that cyclist and pedestrian deaths have increased. From the British Medical Journal. Compulsion to wear a seatbelt cut deaths among drivers and front seat passengers by 25% in 1983. But in the subsequent years, the long established trend of declining deaths in car accidents reversed, and by 1989 death rates among car drivers were higher than they had been in 1983. Evidently the driving population “risk compensated” away the substantial benefits of seatbelts by taking extra risks, putting others in more danger. This period saw a jump in deaths of cyclists (fig ​(fig1).1). Although temporary, the jump can be explained fully only by cyclists having adapted to a more dangerous road environment through extra caution, retreat, or giving up. Is it coincidence that the long decline in cycling began in 1983? [3] … Between 1974 and 1982 cycling mileage in Britain increased 70%, but there was no increase in fatalities until the seatbelt law was introduced in 1983 (fig ​(fig1).1). The more cyclists there are, the more presence they have, the less individual danger there is. This truth is confirmed by experience in the Netherlands and Denmark, where cycling is far safer despite a tradition of segregation. All road users should gain. Pedestrians benefit because (skilful) cyclists are little threat to them and because a large increase in cycling should reduce traffic speeds and thus risks to all. Then there are the health benefits. [3] Responses to opponent’s case. His case rests on utilitarian principles. First, he claims that he agrees with Mill, but Mill clearly establishes in On Liberty that libertarian calculations precede utilitarian calculations and that rights must be protected before the utilitarian calculus applies. Insofar as this is true, the moral structure of my case is the one he must adopt. In practice, however, he ignores rule utilitarianism and uses act utilitarianism to make his calculations. Act Utilitarianism is fundamentally unjust because it ignores the basic reason that society was formed in the first place, namely to preserve natural rights and to not violate them. Act utilitarianism would justify killing innocent individuals in order to harvest their organs if a greater number of people needed them, and would also justify enslaving minorities for majoritarian benefits. The government cannot reasonably engage in act utilitarianism. Either way, the moral structure of my case is the one we must adopt. He then says that seatbelts protect health. It doesn’t matter; the laws are not justified because they violate liberty. He then says that he can 1. protect drivers and 2. protect others on the road. The first response again violates liberty. When the driver drives an individual who is not wearing a seatbelt, he consents to the risk of harms that may result from that decision. Since he consents to those harms, we have no business using coercion. In the second case, those instances are so rare that they do not pose a substantial intended harm and thus we cannot violate liberty to prevent them. In addition, the reckless driving and harms to pedestrians caused by seatbelt laws outweigh the harms caused on those instances, so even on a utilitarian scale, you still negate. He next argues that it saves money. This is false. Insurance premiums increase with accident rates, which increase as a result of reckless driving that is induced by seatbelt laws. In addition, economic calculations do not weigh into the justness of an act. It might be economic to capture individuals and force them to work to death in factories instead of hiring people with wages, but that doesn’t mean it is just or fair. He then decides to impose a penalty on individuals who want to opt out of programs. First, he contradicts his own analysis about preventing unwanted deaths by doing this, so don’t let him get away with claiming that I am allowing for them while he is not since he allows for them to. All harms that he pins on me go on him as well. Second, this is unjust and a violation of property rights. The state cannot impose a tax on such decisions because doing so unfairly curbs liberty. Sources http://www.ehow.com... http://libertyfight.com... http://www.libertariannews.org...