Why should the government be involved on whether or not I should wear a seat belt or not?

Why should the government be involved on whether or not I should wear a seat belt or not?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/wsrP-KnUrts
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

That's a really nice boob, also you're an asshole if you don't wear a seatbelt. It's not just your well being that's at stake.

because they
1. want to lower healthcare costs by all means
2. want to lower healthcare costs by all means
3. want to lower healthcare costs by all means
4. want to lower healthcare costs by all means
5. want to lower healthcare costs by all means
6. care about your health

its other people too?

So noone has too scrape your dumbass off the pavement after you went through the windshield.

Because society is a group of people responsible for the well being of each other whether you approve of it or not as long as you are part of society you have just as much say and pull as anyone else

It reduces deaths on the road
It's a form of collectivism, like nationalism, individuals sacrifice a little bit so that the whole benefits a lot. Libertarians won't understand this

A seatbelt is literally their to increase the survival rate while being in a car crash, what's your problem with the government trying to make You not die OP?

People dying early is actually beneficial to healthcare

Some people think the government should be concerned with public safety and that should be its mandate.

Some people are unprepared to make beneficial decisions at every juncture presented and really counterproductive decisions can be avoided with rote blanket rules.

That's one of the problems with nationalized medicalcare.
Since government and the tax payers pay for it it defacto justifies further tyranny to "reduce cost"

That is pretty much a perfect tit.

Even if they weren't involved there would still be some insurance regulation, and Flo would make for damn sure you wore the fuckin thing.

You agree to follow all their policies when you sign your license. A ticket is really a fine for breach of contract and not a crime.

>seatbelt ticket revenue is just gravy
Government are pimps, user.

Because safety measures like that reduce strain on healthcare, and the danger to others in the event of an incident.

that is a really nice titty and she should be proud.

when you're born you know why they stamp your feet and press it onto paper? because that's imprinting and selling your soul (sole of your feet) to become a security/bond held by the vatican, and you can't generate (tax) income if you aren't alive. so you be safe you good little plebian.

And if I told you there's multiple studies which show no effect on reducing traffic fatalities?
>My empty rhetoric and intent is all that matters for collectivist tyranny
No

Jokes on the government I pulled out my airbag and replaced it with a railroad spike pointed at my face

Because you become the goverments problem if you end up a vegetable.Same with obese people and smokers, you become a liability so the goverment does have a reason to urge you to stop.

It's a common-sense lasw.

i forgot why exactly but its a monopoly of some sort and someone is making ass loads of money by making it mandatory but cucks will keep on believing that its 'for their safety'

because it effects all of us when you get ejected from your car after you crash on the freeway and they have to shut it down to collect your body parts.

Well, a few months back here in new mexico some mom didn't belt her baby in to the car and it went flying through the windshield and landed on the freeway. So that's probably why, cause that shit is probably super expensive when it happens in regards to healthcare.

Not to mention if your dumb faggot ass isn't wearing a seatbelt and gets flung through a windshield, I don't want to be wearing your entrails, or having you ragdoll into my car and causing a crash.

Because their services are the ones that scrape your face off the steering wheel.

I would tell you I don't particularly care as overall drug related crimes are down. You are referring to trafficking which is international and where we need to mind our own.

You hear it every day on the news how much better we are now then compared to the 70's and 80's drug related crimes are at an all time low, sure non drug related violent crimes are at an all time high, but that's a story for another time

you should wear a seatbelt because it'll save your life moron

This kind of thinking leads to "You won't need a gun if we take all of the guns away!"

EXACTLY THIS.

They dont care if you live they just want to minimise the clean up.

Oh shit wrong thread

but yeah fuck hippies

Nobody wants to pay for your dumbass to get healthcare till you die. A seatbelt isn't even uncomfortable or hard to do. Only dumb pricks care about seatbelt laws.

>murder cases against the people that crashed into you
Without a seatbelt, you'll go flying fairly easily.

They should be involved in your inability to into basic grammar numbnuts.

>Getting stopped by the police for anything but speeding
>Not handing police over 10 bucks to forget about everything
>America
>Freedom

This is actually a more serious topic than you imagine. It is generally agreed that the rise in car safety tech has made people more complacent. If every car had a sharpened railroad spike on the steering wheel, how fast do you people would drive? How many would be texting in heavy traffic, when the consequence of a small collision is certain death?

Then why are motorcycles legal?

then don't pay for my healthcare

How is that so hard, authoritarian?

It's so your fat us doesn't fly around the car and fatally knock out every other passenger that had enough sense to use a seatbelt.

Moron.

That is like the Morgan Freeman's voice of titties god damn.

Even without that, you'll still be a burden to someone. And hell, without national healthcare, there's a greater chance of people becoming burdens, since they are at risk of being unable to contribute.

Because people voted for it to become a law.

> there's multiple studies which show no effect on reducing traffic fatalities?
compete bullshit, post these said studies and I will debunk them. I bet you are one of those 16 year olds that think it is safer to be thrown from a modern car in a wreak

If you're an unsupportable burden, you're free to die.

Tfw a true libertarian.

This, you fucking retard.

I don't have anything to contribute to the thread. I just wanted to say that that is a perfect breast.

The seat belt laws were sponsored by the car insurance industry. Too many people cashing in claims for injuries that could have been avoided if they weren't desperately trying to exit the gene pool.
Car insurance companies wanted to safeguard their profits, so they helped pass laws. All in the guise of "safety."
IMO- dumbasses that don't buckle up are doing the rest of the human race a favor. Thank you Darwin!

why do shit tier countries not understand that corruption/bribes ruin states?

Because you should be free to make your own choices in life, even if they're not necessarily good for you.

Because the surplus population could die off early

stfu pleb.

I agree. But society does not. Besides, such burdens might only be temporary. If they were remedied, they'd be back to usefulness. That's where the benefits outweigh the costs.

It's common sense they should be illegal.

Wearing a seatbelt should be up to the wearer/non-wearer as it's a matter that is personal to them only.

HOWEVER, when insurance and lawsuits and corrupt courts and shit are involved, SOMEONE ELSE can get charged with manslaughter and/or pay out the ass financially because you didn't wear a seatbelt.

And yet motorcyclists are free to drive around without wearing seatbelts. (It's actually safer for them to do that than get tangled up in the wreckage, but that doesn't change the fact that motorcycles are more dangerous and pose greater risk to cause others to have legal and financial liability. I don't see how you can force a car driver to wear a seatbelt while also allowing dangerous vehicles like motorcycles on the roads.

youtu.be/wsrP-KnUrts

Moron that keeps the surplus populas alive.

Only dumbasses think seatbelts should be legal. They keep the surplus population alive.

Sounds like you've been playing Assassin's Creed.

Insurance on a bike and health insurance for a bike rider is quite a bit higher. That's how it evens out somewhat.

stfu numnuts.

it keeps you alive because people with an iq less than 100 are allowed to drive

imagine if the people in nice had been wearing seatbelts

Moron. That keeps the surplus population.

dumbass i hope you have cancer

How would that effect me if they were wearing seatbelts or not?

Somebody pays for your healthcare, dumbshit. Insurance (health and auto) wouldn't be so damn high if dumbfucks didn't keep getting hurt all the time doing dumb things that could be avoided.

stfu stupid.

So how would you feel if I got in an accident, wasn't wearing my helmet or a seat belt and got put into a coma. My family can't pay for it and now it's your duty as a tax payer to keep my vegetable ass alive.

Because I didn't wear the proper safety equipment on my car/bike

Well in a perfect society it would be nice, but guess what? We live in a liberal country, we can't just let dumbfucks die without paying a lot of money to somebody who doesn't deserve it.

Bingo.

>a leaf
>has no other argument
>resorts to name calling
Good one.
Also, no wonder your insurance is so high. Keep it up, leaf, you're doing good.

That's not why the laws were passed. They were passed because the government cares about your health

suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

That can be solved by the free market. Allow insurance companies to assume the burden of incentivizing safe practices (like they do now, to some extent) instead of the government compelling them by decree.

Anyway, insurance is (or rather, should be) a voluntary contractual agreement. If you get insurance, you are agreeing to have your premiums potentially pay to fix someone else's misfortunes.

If you have a public health system & police which are relied upon to clean up any accidents/injuries resulting from car crashes, they have an implicit duty to bring in measures to help reduce fatalies/costs (e.g. seat belts, side-curtain airbags, no phone-usage while driving etc.) Similarly occurs with things like smoking and all that.

Of course, once you establish these nanny-state rules, society tends to double-down on it. I envision a future where you'll be taxed for being too costly on the health system for very trivial things, and totalitarian-esque laws to combat the potential of accidents (eating/drinking while driving).

I don't agree with all the above happening at all, but we're not entering an anarcho-capitalist world anytime soon, so the best we can do is strip-away the state's control over health/transport/infrastructure by any means possible.

agreed, but the role of government tends to be wasting money.
Allowing a secular or religious organization to make these decisions would be preferable.

Can't drive here without insurance.
Unless you live within a mile or 2 of your job, you need a car.
Insurance isn't voluntary. Also, because of universal health care in the U.S now, health care isn't voluntary either. So, unless you're made out of money, you need some insurance in this country.

You forget non-fatal injuries

Yeah man, that would be pretty shitty.

A car is designed to keep the occupant area safe in a crash, so you are supposed to stay in it. Motorcycles are too small to have effective crumple zones or rider restrictions of any kind, so riding gear is designed to protect the rider after he separates from the bike.

>Allowing a secular or religious organization to make these decisions would be preferable.
Like a government...?

Yeah, and that's more dangerous than being in a car in most cases.

because no one wants to deal with shredded human remains on blacktop when they could deal with shredded human remains in a nice crumpled container

They shouldn't.

You're pretty damn dumb if you don't wear one, though. But it should be your choice.

You're a dumb nerd.

>a leaf

Because politicians receive donations from insurance companies.
Seatbelt and helmet laws help cut down on their payouts on accident claims.

a voluntary organization into which you can pay.
Giving you the option to pay for the cause reduces waste, as you must justify the expenditures.

>a voluntary organization into which you can pay.
That would only work if the organisation was ultimately not affected by the loss of people as a country is.

by the loss of people paying or by the persons dying?
In the case of people dying, they should've picked a better horse to pay for.
In the case of payers, then they really don't care about the issue, or dislike an inefficient organization.

Payers. An organisation in the free market will fail if it doesn't attract customers, and thus another organisation will take its place. But for a nation, if it doesn't have people supporting it, it becomes detriment to the people.

What number of people do you think are dying because they crashing into people in this example?

It wouldn't be a meaningful percentage, because people would put their belt on for the most part.