From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:16:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.135700.1991@bmerh85.bnr.ca> paynter@bnr.ca (Stuart Paynter) writes:
>[lottsa stuff deleted].............

>|>  It is MY skull that is cracked open, not anyone else's.  And as I said in a previous post, I think it is silly to think that ANYONE would see reduced insurance prices if there were mandatory helmet laws.  In fact, in Minnesota where we are required to have car insurance, for example, it raised insurance prices since one of the basic concepts of capitalism is violated:  I don't have the choice NOT to purchase the product.

>I don't usually like to comment on such things as pesonal freedom but here 
>I go....  Yes it is your skull.  By you cracking your skull open, you 
>affect (possibly)

>     - any people that may present when the accident occured
>     - ambulance/paramedics/fire/police who have to come and patch
>       you up
>     - hospital emergency staff
>     - hospital staff (doctors, nurses, orderlies, kitchen staff
>       etc etc) while you recover.
>     - any person who also needs the hospital bed you are occupying
>     - your (and/or your employers) medical insurance
>     - every other person on that medical insurance plan

Why are we required to provide the same amount of medical care at the same
price independent of whether you wear a helmet?  And is it even clear that
your wearing a helmet might not INCREASE the amount of medical care needed?
A motorcycle accident may have a much higher chance of resulting in death
without a helmet, and a much higher chance of hospitalization with one.

Is it even clear that wearing a helmet does not increase the chance of an
accident?  And not wearing a helmet can certainly increase the pursuit of
happiness for many.  

>     - your FAMILY who worries about you
>     - your employer/customers while you are away from work
>     - lawyers/judges/court employees if there is a lawsuit

>There are more.  I am not flaming anyone who believes in the right to choose.
>I just want to point out that we cannot treat some of our choices as only
>affecting ourselves, and that this reason cannot be used as a strong arguement
>for that right.

This same argument could be used to prohibit allowing overweight people to 
eat desserts.  It could even be used to prohibit crossing a street without
a police escort.

From the standpoint of cost to society, having a child without means of
support is probably far more costly.  And in an overpopulated world, and
an overpopulated country, probably more to be deplored.

So this particular law MAY give some small benefit to society, probably
far less than it is worth, while putting a large dent in freedom.  The
worst type of government I can think of is a democratic totalitarian
state--mob rule.   It makes no difference if the legislation is by an
elected body, or by acclamation in a mob scene; one should keep in mind
the "great experiment," Prohibition. 
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)