There should not be a mandatory seatbelt law

I want to acknowledge my worthy opponent. I admire his formal debating skills and I thank him for his politeness. P1: A person is free to do what they wish so long as they don't infringe upon another is how I am understanding my opponent's rebuttal, and I do agree with this concept. However, my opponent has not proven or shown that anyone is being infringed upon. In his example of a student 'wising off' to his teacher there was a victim, someone was wronged, someone had their rights infringed upon. In the case of not wearing a seat belt no one else is harmed or infringed upon. I do agree for instance that the government should have a role in ensuring that a vehicle has working brakes, to protect the safety of others, but where there is no victim to protect, such as in the case of mandatory seat belt laws, I believe the role of the government to be to preserve rights and liberties, and to stand up to it's ideal of protecting life, liberty (emphasis added), and the pursuit of happiness. As a final example: There are no laws against overeating, which significantly contributes to a large number of health related preventable deaths, but rather, it is given to the individuals to decide what they will or won't do. I will close on this point by reiterating the fact also that anyone who desires to wear a seat belt is free to do so and would not be affected at all by allowing other people the right to exercise their freedoms as well, as the saying goes, live and let live. P2: My opponent claims that it doesn't make sense that the government would need to resort to this tactic to raise revenues, but rather could simply raise taxes. While I agree that on the surface it may actually appear that way, that a government can simply levy taxes upon a population and there is nothing that the said population can or will do about it. That is nice to think in an ideal sense, but in reality it is not so easy for a government to raise taxes. Politicians and leaders who attempt to raise taxes sometimes find out the hard way that the people do not like being excessively taxed, and they actively resist efforts of the government to do so. As an example of this I will use Gray Davis, former Governor of California, who attempted to raise taxes on car registration and was subsequently removed from office by a recall election, in the which the current Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, came to power[1]. Greed does make sense to a lot of people unfortunately. One example I will use is the state of Maryland: "Some states, such as Maryland, are so eager that they've equipped their officers with night vision goggles, similar to those used by our servicemen in Iraq. Maryland state troopers bagged 44 drivers traveling unbuckled under the cover of darkness."[2]. Another example, which is common knowledge to most people, would be the police 'quotas'. By having police 'quotas' the police are using their powers not to protect the people, but to extract revenue. A problem occurs however when the people start seeing the police not as protectors, but as oppressors, if this happens then serious consequences can result. According to the social contract by John Locke the government can only maintain power by having the consent of the governed.[3] I have saved the most insidious example for last. My final example of the seat belt law being a revenue generator is the issue of federal highway funding. In order to qualify for federal highway funds the states are effectively blackmailed into compliance. To put it in simple terms, if a state refuses to have a mandatory seat belt law then they will lose their highway funding. This topic segues well into my next point so I will elaborate further there. P3: My opponent seems to imply that the mandatory helmet laws are good, and that mandatory helmet laws should simply be added on to mandatory seat belt laws. I would like to illustrate what really is going on, and as I stated above it is directly linked with the federal funding issue. I will start by stating the fact that some states have a mandatory seat belt law, but not a mandatory helmet law. Two states are Arizona and Idaho. I would like to examine the logic and thought process that those states have adopted. Why do those states not have a mandatory helmet law? I would say the logical answer is that they do not desire to have either law, but they have been coerced into adopting the mandatory seat belt law in order to secure their funding. The mandatory helmet law was not required and so they didn't impose that. To me, and hopefully all who will read this, that is a clear signal that they know they do not have the cause of righteousness on their side. They are willing to take away liberties and individual freedoms only when they are forced into doing so by economic blackmail, and given the choice they would rather not have that law. As a further proof, a paltry fine for breaking that law was instituted at first, somewhere around a five dollar fine was all that was assessed, I will concede that now however, as the state realizes they can get more money from it, it is being exploited and the amounts of the fines have increased. In summary the state decided to preserve the freedoms of the motorcyclists, as long as their funding (and jobs) were not at risk, so I am implying what you stated, but in reverse. Since they find freedom to be right, in the case of not requiring helmets, they also should find the same with regards to seat belts, and they would, if it wasn't for the blackmail pertaining to the federal highway funds. P4: My opponent's main point appears to be that Seat belted vehicle occupants have about HALF the chance of dying in a car crash as non-belted vehicle occupants. It is simply a fact that many accidents a person could be involved in would be safer for them if they were not wearing a seat belt. The most common accident site is at intersections. The type of accident most common at intersections is a "T-bone". Side Impacts: In the 11-17-90 Status Report, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is quoted as saying: Even in low-severity side impacts, serious occupant injuries may occur, especially to drivers on the struck side of the vehicle. The Plymouth (shown above) was struck on the side at a relatively low speed but the driver, who was using a lap-shoulder belt, suffered multiple rib fractures and other injuries. In severe side impacts, even worse injuries often occur. The passenger in the Chevrolet (shown above) was trapped in the car after this crash and subsequently was hospitalized for seven days with injuries. It's because of the seriousness of injuries that occur in such crashes that NHTSA plans to add side impact tests to NCAP[4]. Two professors at the University of Winnipeg, Canada, completed a three year study based on 2,715 drivers from 1982-88 who were injured and matched up with hospital records. According to the study, seat belt use result in more injuries to specific parts of the body, namely: 2.9% more to spine; 2.8% more to chest and pelvis; and 2.3% more to the head[4]. This brings me to a ludicris example, but one that is obvious and needs to be stated. If a person is involved in an accident and they survive the crash. But they only survived the crash because they were not wearing a seatbelt, then they must, by law, be cited for not wearing the safety device, or rather it should be said "so called safety device". This is not logical, I don't know what more that I can say than that. My contention is that laws should always be made for the better. Which brings me back to my original idea, that there should not be a mandatory seat belt law. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.Click it or ticket to socialism, Walter E. Williams 3.John Locke, The Social Contral Contract, ch.ch. XI 4.http://www.atch.com...