Debate: Should the US have seatbelt laws?
Side: No - it's a personal choice

The reasons given in support of seatbelt laws in this debate seem ridiculous to me. One argument was that is was the purpose of government to protect its people from themselves. FALSE. Another argument was that it is proven seatbelts increase safety and save lives. Also FALSE. Then, someone was creative enough to say we should have seat belts laws, because of the benefits to ourselves and society and that they do NOT infringe on any rights, even though they would NOT support laws against smoking, drinking, etc. because those activities have "utility" - which I interpret to mean purpose. In opposition to seat belt laws there are research studies that have shown that while wearing a safety belt may increase an individual's safety in certain types of crashes, it actually INCREASES risk and injury in other types of crashes. Don't just read the government, auto and insurance industry reports - dig a little deeper. Because the research that proves seat belts can actually CAUSE injuries in many types of accidents don’t fit the politically correct view, they are completely ignored. The result is that we never get a true comparison of whether wearing a seat belt actually saves more lives or causes more deaths because those numbers are ignored.In addition, if the purpose in enacting laws is to save the taxpayer dollars - which was a common argument - why do we focus so intently on infringing on citizens rights when it comes to seat belts as a way to save money, but totally disregard it in other areas? The list of laws we could enact, or repeal that would end up saving dollars is innumerable. I would love to read a research statistic on comparing the costs that are saved due to wearing seatbelts ( a true one that actually addresses the fact that in many types of accidents, they actually CAUSE injuries that would have been avoided without a seatbelt) vs. the costs that would be saved by the taxpayer if smoking were outlawed completely, if overeating were outlawed completely, if drinking were outlawed completely . . . I mean we wouldn't get 100% compliance, but increasing the numbers of individuals in compliance would effect our health care costs immensely. Then, of course, we could jail the violators and thereby force compliance. If this sounds ridiculous to you, is cost really the issue?If protecting us from ourselves is the argument, and according to more than one supporter, that is (after all) a primary role of government, then the same arguments could be made. Smoking is bad for us - 100% of the time. Therefore, making smoking completely illegal would provide 100% benefit. Seatbelts (if the propaganda is true) are only beneficial for us in the event of an accident. According to the US Census, in my state of Michigan there are approximately 1.3 accidents per 100 million miles driven. Statistically speaking, we would save a LOT more money and lives with a smoking ban . . . IF our concern is really the health of our citizens. Ultimately, it's a question of liberty. James Madison noted that "there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." When we support the encroachment on ANYONE'S liberty, we open the door to encroachment on our own. Sometimes, even when there are benefits, the benefits RARELY outweigh the loss of liberty. Those willing to give up even a little bit of liberty for any amount of safety deserve neither. (paraphrased)