From: casseres@apple.com (David Casseres)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:03:09 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <scottj-291292090620@iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu>,
scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott) wrote:

> Ultra-pure Libertarian types are mostly against "indecency" laws.  The
> libertarian "philosophy" is simple and easy to apply: anything you want to
> do is okay as long as it does not initiate force against another or
> constitute fraud.  Most libertarians apply this rule consistently, so you
> will be hard-pressed to catch one in a contradiction.

I have heard/read any number of Libertarian lectures on helmet laws, and
absolutely none on clothing laws.  I call that a contradiction.

> That being said, it is an error to equate helmet laws with clothing laws. 
> There is a fundamental difference.  Clothing laws are meant to protect
> *others* from the sight of your naked body (rightly or wrongly).  Helmet
> laws are meant to protect *you* from injury.  Change the violation from
> "indecent exposure", which they would not consider an initiation of force,
> to "assault", which they would, and libertarians will be in favor of the
> law because it protects one from others.  But a libertarian would never
> favor a law that protects you from yourself.

Yes, there's a difference of intent between helmet laws and clothing laws. 
But it's irrelevant to my argument, which is that both are irrational
restrictions of individual liberty.

[I wrote]
> > Next, a little something for the "I make my personal choice to take the
> > risk of riding without a helmet, and no one can tell me not to" crowd: 
> > Maybe you think you know what you're risking, but what if you realize, in
> > that last split-second as your skull heads for the curbstone, that you
> > didn't really know what the hell you were talking about?  Mind you, I don't
> > think anyone *should* force you to wear a helmet; it's just that I think
> > some of you may not know what you're talking about.
> 
> Very true, but it is shouldn't be against the law to be stupid.  There are
> several good reasons for this, the most fundamental of which is: how can
> you tell whether I really don't know what I'm talking about or whether I'm
> really ready to take the risk?  This doesn't just apply to riding bicycles
> without a helmet--it also applies to bungee jumping, skydiving, rock
> climbing, smoking, eating fatty foods, riding motorcycles with or without
> helmets, driving small cars, fixing your own roof, etc.  An argument could
> be made that each of those things is a stupid thing to do, but many of them
> I do or want to do.

Libertarians are so damn funny.  What did I say in my very first paragraph?
 I said I'm *against* helmet laws, and here you are lecturing me about the
evils of helmet laws.

> Moral arguments aside, it is simply impractical to draw the line for
> responsibility over an individual's action anywhere but at the individual
> himself.  Your only other choice is to remove more and more freedoms which
> becomes more and more difficult.

...yes, yes, yes...

> > Then there's the Nobody's Business But My Own argument.  It's bullshit. 
> > Somebody somewhere gives a shit about you and will be hurt if you die, or
> > become a drooling veggie.  If it happens because you wouldn't wear a
> > helmet, they'll be real pissed at you too.  On the other hand, if there's
> > *really* no one who cares, maybe you should give up cycling for a while and
> > concentrate on getting a life.
> 
> Most people factor the potential sorrow of loved ones into their risk
> analysis.  That is why car insurance is cheaper for married people.  That
> does not make it right to force people to not do things that are risky to
> themselves.  The basic question is: who's life is it?  Does it belong to
> you or the people around you?
> 
> If you're going to take this angle, why stop at helmet laws?  Why not make
> it illegal to not send Mother's Day cards?  Why not jail people who disown
> their fathers and refuse to speak to them for years?  Why not make illegal
> all the other things that could hurt the people who care about you?

...yes, yes, yes...  Can you tell the difference between an argument in
favor of helmet laws and a bit of moral advice?

> And what about people who really have nobody who cares about them?  You are
> saying that if you have people who care about you then you shouldn't have
> the right to risk your life because they could feel sorrow.

I would not even be bothering to answer you if you were not so carried away
in your ideological fervor as to misrepresent me in this way.  I am
certainly not saying anyone shouldn't have the right to risk his life.  I
am saying that it may be a thoughtless and inconsiderate thing to do.

> If you do not
> have people who care about you then you shouldn't have that right because
> you are a pathetic, worthless creature who doesn't deserve the right.  Have
> I got that correctly?

No, you haven't.  If you want to argue with a straw man, build your own;
don't try to use me for one, it's offensive.

> And just one more question.  Even if you ignore the rest of this post, I'd
> really like to know the answer to this.  You have disagreed with all of the
> arguments given against helmet laws, yet you yourself do not support them. 
> My question is: why?  What is it in your personal philosophy that opposes
> you to them?

Well well.  So you actually *did* notice that I oppose helmet laws.  I
don't have anything so pompous as a "personal philosophy," but I am a civil
libertarian.  I am against laws that do nobody any real good and restrict
the
liberty of individuals in an unreasonable fashion.  I have not disagreed
with all the arguments against helmet laws -- only the stupid ones.  I have
not argued for helmet laws, although you've tried to make it look that way;
I have argued for the wisdom and the moral desirability of wearing a
helmet.  Why can't you, with all your "personal philosophy," tell the
difference?

--

David Casseres
Exclaimer: Wow!
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.atheism