The seat belt law is a puzzler to me too. Motorcyclist don't have to wear a helmet - it's unconstitutional. But you have to wear a seat belt.
I wear both. Still, a person has a right to be dumb.

The problem is their right to be dumb can cost ME in the event of an accident, even if it's their fault.

Very good article addressing this very issue:

Click It Or Ticket written by Dr. Walter E. Williams Imagine you're having a backyard barbeque. A cop walks in and announces, "This is a random health and safety check to see whether you've removed the skin from the chicken before you served it." Though delicious in taste, we all know that chicken skin contains considerable unhealthy fat. If you're caught serving chicken skin, the cop gets your ID and issues you a $50 ticket. If something like this were to occur, most Americans, I hope, would see such an action as ludicrous, offensive, and a gross violation of our liberties. But not so fast; let's think about it. Each year obesity claims the lives of 300,000 Americans and adds over $100 billion to healthcare costs. Doesn't that give government the right to dictate what we eat? If you're the least offended by the notion of government dictating our diets, pray tell me how it differs in principle from seatbelt laws and especially the new federal enforcement program called "Click It Or Ticket." Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the federal government is spending $500 million to aggressively enforce seatbelt laws. According to a Consumers Research (July 2003) article written by Eric Peters titled "The Federal Government Wants You To Buckle Up", about 11,000 law enforcement agencies across the country have set up random checkpoints and have issued hundreds of thousands of tickets to unbelted drivers and passengers. Just as in my barbeque scenario, their justification is our health and safety. After all the 2002 highway death toll was 42,815 and according to a U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study, "The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes on America's Roadways," seatbelt usage could have prevented an estimated 9,200 fatalities. "Click It Or Ticket" represents another bold step along the road to serfdom. History knows of no totalitarianism agenda where noble goals weren't used as justification. Nazis used "for the good of the German Volk" and the Soviets used "for the good of the proletariat" as their justification. Health and safety has become the American justification for attacks on liberty. In a free society, each person owns himself. As such he has the broad discretion to make his own choices regardless of what others think of the wisdom of his choices. He has the right to take chances with his own health and safety. However, if an American doesn't own himself, and it's Congress that owns him, he doesn't have those rights. Thus, the "Click It Or Ticket" program is simply Congress' way of caring for its property, the American people. Whether seatbelt usage is a good idea is beside the point, for daily exercise, nutritious meals, eight hours sleep and cultural and intellectual enrichment might also be good ideas. The point is whether government has a right to coerce us into taking care of ourselves. If eating what we wish is our business and not that of government, then why should we accept government's coercing us to wear seatbelts? America's tyrants might answer, "We just haven't gotten around to dictating diets yet." Some might argue, but falsely so, that the problem with people exercising their liberty to drive without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets or eat in unhealthy ways, is that if they become injured or sick society will be burdened with higher healthcare costs. That's not a problem of liberty but one of socialism. There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another. Under socialism one is obliged to care for another. A parent-child relationship emerges between the citizen and the government. That was not the vision of our Founders. Walter E. Williams c40-03 September 8, 2003

Some might argue, but falsely so, that the problem with people exercising their liberty to drive without seatbelts, ride motorcycles without helmets or eat in unhealthy ways, is that if they become injured or sick society will be burdened with higher healthcare costs. That's not a problem of liberty but one of socialism. There's no liberty-based argument for forcing one person to care for the needs of another.

However, if medical care for the person that chose self-endangerment by not wearing the seatbelt results in healthcare resources being diverted from another injured person whose injuries are not a result of self-endangerment resulting in the death of the second person then the condition of the original post is met. The decision to not wear a seatbelt has caused harm to another person.

Also, Insurance companies feel they have a right to require a minimum of saftey practice, (such as wearing a seatbelt) if they are to pay on life insurance claims. If one chooses to endanger oneself by not wearing a seatbelt one cannot expect life insurance to be paid to their estate if they were to die as a result.

The problem is their right to be dumb can cost ME in the event of an accident, even if it's their fault.

Dumb is always going to cost.  But the solution is to pass a law saying no seat belt, no liability regardless of who is at fault.  There is no law against leaving a rake in the yard (dumb people do), but it can cost you as well.  Dumb costs money.  But make it the dumb ones money.

Dr. Guy:

Exactly. And the argument about health care is only relivent in a country like Canada that forces public health care on you and forces you to pay for it thus breaking the point to the quote in the first place. Yes, Health care is great. But just because it's great, doesn't mean that you have to right to force others to get it too.

What you do have a right to, is to expect that if you choose to pay for it, that you'll get service first.

I'll preface my statements here by saying that I feel that seat belt laws are just another product of the Nanny State mentality and feel they are not justified in a free society. I also agree 100% with Mills' statement.

That being said, I can actually justify the same laws using his own argument. (Playing Devil's advocate here)

The likelyhood of serious injuries in an accident goes up a great deal if one is not wearing a seat belt.

This results in higher pay outs by insurance companies.

This results in higher premiums for everyone. This means that the people not wearing seat belts did in fact cause financial harm to others.

That's the logic that was used to get those laws passed in the first place.

To: MasonM

What 'harm' is there in financial loss? No harm to the health of others. No harm to their future prospects in life. No harm to their ability to make good their cash losses in other ways. What exactly is this 'harm' you refer to? If you wish to avoid any suggestion of the socialization of health care through distribution of costs then the solution, as Dr Guy proposes, is to make the individual concerned responsible:

But the solution is to pass a law saying no seat belt, no liability regardless of who is at fault.

No one is harmed financially. Some people are, however, subjected to costs that, it can be argued, they ought not to bear.

What 'harm' is there in financial loss?

harm
Function: noun
2: the occurrence of a change for the worse

That is one definition of the word harm. It fits this debate.

Yes, one could have simply passed laws denying payment of insurance benefits to anyone not wearing a seatbelt, but then it does harm to the medical community who treat the injured person and don't receive payment. See the slippery slope here?

Ok, I'm trying to understand this. Because this John Stuart Mill guy, this philosopher and political economist who lived like 130 or so years ago says something, that makes it so? Therefore "the law should not exist"? We're no longer permitted to make amendments to this? It's carved in stone because one guy who's philosophies have little bearing 100 plus years later, said it?

To: MasonM

Doctors, all of them, are blood-sucking parsites one step up on the evolutionary ladder from lawyers. They live by profiting from the misery of others, and charge exorbitantly for the privilege of merely walking through their doors. It would do no one any harm (in your sense or any other) for the medical profession in general to suffer a few financial losses.

To: UBoB

Because this John Stuart Mill guy, this philosopher and political economist who lived like 130 or so years ago says something, that makes it so?

No one is arguing that what John Stuart Mill said is somehow a 'law' that can never be changed. What Mill did was to enunciate a philosophical principle - that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. It's called 'Utilitarianism' and Mill's principle is one of its founding ideas, along with the work of Jeremy Bentham. Its opposite would be that the good of the few outweighs that of the many - often embodied in another philosophical form, that of 'Aristocracy'.

It's carved in stone because one guy who's philosophies have little bearing 100 plus years later, said it?

Some aspects of Mill's philosophy may be outdated, but the basic principle is as worthy of debate now as it was when he first enunciated it. It is, for example, particularly relevant to the situation in Iraq, where the good of the many - Iraqis as a whole - is threatened by the good as defined by Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds, the main devotional and national groups struggling for power there.

The reference to MIll in John Galt's post has nothing to do with 'laws' of any kind, and everything to do with philosophical principles and the way they can illuminate contemporary situations.

Very good article addressing this very issue: Click It Or Ticket written by Dr. Walter E. Williams

One of my favorites.

I have said for some time (and still believe) that it is not long before we will see "public gluttony" laws attempted. We've totally accepted the government's rights to dictate our lives for us, and it's absurd.

Doctors, all of them, are blood-sucking parsites one step up on the evolutionary ladder from lawyers. They live by profiting from the misery of others, and charge exorbitantly for the privilege of merely walking through their doors. It would do no one any harm (in your sense or any other) for the medical profession in general to suffer a few financial losses.

Have a look at this book written by a guy named Andy Kessler called The End of Medicine. Here's a link to his website.Link

He basically is looking at technology to do to doctors what ATM's did to bank tellers. And yes, I stole that analogy from his website.

I don't have much else to add, as seatbelt laws have never made sense to me, even before I started to actually think about why it was.

The arguements about the cost to another because of higher insurance risks are coming from the wrong angle. There is no reason for the law to get involved. The insurance companies can decide without a law to either deny coverage to someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt or absorb it and pass the cost on to the policyholders. Then consumers are free to choose between higher rates and coverage for no seatbelts or lower rates at their own risk.

The law is not needed to prevent the harm to others that not wearing a seatbelt would cause. The free market will happily take care of that by itself.