From: scottj@magic.dml.georgetown.edu (John L. Scott)
Subject: Re: Freedom, Social Responsibility, Individual Responsibility
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:17:19 GMT
X-Posted-From: iamac-1.dml.georgetown.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <casseres-231292084333@missmolly.apple.com>, casseres@apple.com
(David Casseres) wrote:
[...]
> First, just one question for all the ultra-pure Libertarian types who are
> saying that no government anywhere has any right to tell anyone to wear
> anything for any reason:  Where were all you mighty warriors when they made
> laws that say we have to wear clothing when we walk around on the street? 
> Why aren't you out there bare-ass naked like that guy in Berekeley,
> protesting stupid laws about apparel and "decency"?  If you aren't going to
> deal with clothing laws, then your philosophical opposition to helmet laws
> is purely a hand-job.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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?

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.  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?
 
> A: Well, right now it's illegal for bicyclists (and cars) to run stop
> signs; and bicycles (and cars) almost always run stop signs if they feel
> they can do it safely; and they practically never get a ticket for it. 

Once again, running a stop sign puts others at risk, while cycling
helmetless puts only you at risk.

> So
> figure it out for yourself, and ask yourself whether it's worth your while
> to get all lathered up about helmet laws destroying your fundamental
> liberties.

You poo-poo it, but just tell me why I shouldn't be able to go about my own
peaceful business without fear of the law?  If that isn't what freedom is,
then what is it?  Seriously, do you have another definition of freedom?

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?

> David Casseres
> Exclaimer: Wow!

John L. Scott
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.abortion