Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

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.

Rob wrote:So who is responsible for the damages? No one?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:Hypothetical; Burt, if wearing a seatbelt wasn’t forced upon you by any laws, would you wear one because it made you safer?

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.

Rob wrote:

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:

Rob wrote:

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?

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

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.

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

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.

spike wrote: Libertarians are unaware of the effect of their actions on others.

spike wrote:

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

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.

wease wrote:

spike wrote:

Rob wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Rob wrote:

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.

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote: Libertarians are unaware of the effect of their actions on others.

The irony of this post is so vast it could block out the sun.

spike wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

spike wrote: Libertarians are unaware of the effect of their actions on others.

The irony of this post is so vast it could block out the sun.

Do you shed a tear whenever you see an impressionable young child being secured into a car seat? Because I promise you, it doesn’t matter.

BurtReynolds wrote:"You don't think sugar should be banned? What are you, pro-sugar?!"

BurtReynolds wrote:"You don't think sugar should be banned? What are you, pro-sugar?!"