BurtReynolds wrote:It's not even a counterpoint to the libertarian view, as the libertarian view is wider and includes values of freedom and personal autonomy, and not just the value of saving lives. It's not a counterpoint. It's ignoring the point entirely.
Can you expand on this? I might be an idiot on this, but if your recklessness contributes to damages (physical or financial) to other people, is "freedom" the defense?
If someone is injured due to their own actions, and their healthcare is paid for voluntarily by other people, then these people haven't been damaged by the injured person.
If someone is injured due to their own actions, and their healthcare is paid for by other people, and these other people were forced to pay for it by a third party, then the injured person hasn't damaged them. The third party that forced them to pay for it has damaged them.
In neither scenario is the "reckless" person responsible for the financial damages incurred on the people paying his medical expenses.
Are you talking about the 2 weird examples given in the wikipedia link? They are both so silly that they don't really merit considering, but in the second, it would be whoever is responsible for the accident most likely. The other is so fantastical it couldn't possibly justify a law.
BurtReynolds wrote:Are you talking about the 2 weird examples given in the wikipedia link? They are both so silly that they don't really merit considering, but in the second, it would be whoever is responsible for the accident most likely. The other is so fantastical it couldn't possibly justify a law.
I didn't claim they were good arguments, 4/5 said he didn't see any arguments and that's what I found. I suppose you're right and this is the government acting like a "nanny", but I don't know... it seems like a no-brainer that saves $ and lives. Should you be free to drive 90 mph on city roads?
BurtReynolds wrote:Are you talking about the 2 weird examples given in the wikipedia link? They are both so silly that they don't really merit considering, but in the second, it would be whoever is responsible for the accident most likely. The other is so fantastical it couldn't possibly justify a law.
I didn't claim they were good arguments, 4/5 said he didn't see any arguments and that's what I found. I suppose you're right and this is the government acting like a "nanny", but I don't know... it seems like a no-brainer that saves $ and lives. Should you be free to drive 90 mph on city roads?
BurtReynolds wrote:Are you talking about the 2 weird examples given in the wikipedia link? They are both so silly that they don't really merit considering, but in the second, it would be whoever is responsible for the accident most likely. The other is so fantastical it couldn't possibly justify a law.
I didn't claim they were good arguments, 4/5 said he didn't see any arguments and that's what I found. I suppose you're right and this is the government acting like a "nanny", but I don't know... it seems like a no-brainer that saves $ and lives. Should you be free to drive 90 mph on city roads?
That would likely endanger other people, no?
Yes, like not wearing your seatbelt might increase the cost of my healthcare. I realize the "slippery slope" argument here, but there must be a line somewhere.
BurtReynolds wrote:Are you talking about the 2 weird examples given in the wikipedia link? They are both so silly that they don't really merit considering, but in the second, it would be whoever is responsible for the accident most likely. The other is so fantastical it couldn't possibly justify a law.
I didn't claim they were good arguments, 4/5 said he didn't see any arguments and that's what I found. I suppose you're right and this is the government acting like a "nanny", but I don't know... it seems like a no-brainer that saves $ and lives. Should you be free to drive 90 mph on city roads?
That would likely endanger other people, no?
Yes, like not wearing your seatbelt might increase the cost of my healthcare. I realize the "slippery slope" argument here, but there must be a line somewhere.
Libertarians are unaware of the effect of their actions on others.
BurtReynolds wrote:Are you talking about the 2 weird examples given in the wikipedia link? They are both so silly that they don't really merit considering, but in the second, it would be whoever is responsible for the accident most likely. The other is so fantastical it couldn't possibly justify a law.
I didn't claim they were good arguments, 4/5 said he didn't see any arguments and that's what I found. I suppose you're right and this is the government acting like a "nanny", but I don't know... it seems like a no-brainer that saves $ and lives. Should you be free to drive 90 mph on city roads?
That would likely endanger other people, no?
Yes, like not wearing your seatbelt might increase the cost of my healthcare. I realize the "slippery slope" argument here, but there must be a line somewhere.
The line is about a billion miles in the rear view mirror from this position.
BurtReynolds wrote:Are you talking about the 2 weird examples given in the wikipedia link? They are both so silly that they don't really merit considering, but in the second, it would be whoever is responsible for the accident most likely. The other is so fantastical it couldn't possibly justify a law.
I didn't claim they were good arguments, 4/5 said he didn't see any arguments and that's what I found. I suppose you're right and this is the government acting like a "nanny", but I don't know... it seems like a no-brainer that saves $ and lives. Should you be free to drive 90 mph on city roads?
That would likely endanger other people, no?
Yes, like not wearing your seatbelt might increase the cost of my healthcare. I realize the "slippery slope" argument here, but there must be a line somewhere.
Libertarians are unaware of the effect of their actions on others.
No, they’re just indifferent about them.
Let me tell you, Homer Simpson is cock of nothing!
- C. Montgomery Burns
BurtReynolds wrote:Are you talking about the 2 weird examples given in the wikipedia link? They are both so silly that they don't really merit considering, but in the second, it would be whoever is responsible for the accident most likely. The other is so fantastical it couldn't possibly justify a law.
I didn't claim they were good arguments, 4/5 said he didn't see any arguments and that's what I found. I suppose you're right and this is the government acting like a "nanny", but I don't know... it seems like a no-brainer that saves $ and lives. Should you be free to drive 90 mph on city roads?
That would likely endanger other people, no?
Yes, like not wearing your seatbelt might increase the cost of my healthcare. I realize the "slippery slope" argument here, but there must be a line somewhere.
Libertarians are unaware of the effect of their actions on others.
No, they’re just indifferent about them.
Rule us, righteous do-gooder! Save us from ourselves!
I guess I would take Libertarian arguments more seriously if they didn't equate common sense stuff like "you have to wear your seatbelt while traveling in a high speed vehicle on public roads" to government tyranny.
BurtReynolds wrote:"You don't think sugar should be banned? What are you, pro-sugar?!"
But in the case of seatbelts, isn’t it pretty much a fact that they make you safer? So why argue about seatbelt laws as something that is the government trying to control you? Seems like arguing for the sake of arguing
