@vdcdriver I understand your logic, but what is the cutoff point, should we mandate dietary controls for the obese and diabetic? Prevent couples with a high risk of birth defect or genetic issues from having kids. Outlaw football, boxing and mma because of potential life long disabilities. News story yesterday air and water pollution are the biggest negative factor for longevity in China and India, yes we should stop pollution.
"Should we make dietary controls for he obese and diabetic ? "
That WILL come to pass. We will pass laws to discourage behavior that will cost the society. And, it will be rationalized on moral grounds…but bet your life, it’s economics. Companies that supply the foods possessed with additives and chemicals that promote addiction to to this life style are economically depriving the rest of society of their financial freedom.
I think they don’t love their life! Seat belts are so important, it can protect you from a big accident but people don’t understand i guess.
@Barkydog, the cutoff point is seatbelts. As far as this discussion is concerned, the cutoff point is seatbelts. This whole “slippery slope” argument is a distraction from the issue being discussed and it’s based on a logical fallacy.
The proper use of seat belts By the pilot in an aircraft cannot be diminished for passenger safety. Not that you need to be buckled in a rollover in a car in order to steer it, but evasive maneuvers can surely be more easily performed by buckling up in a car which is veering out of control. You don’t see race car drivers complaining about their personal freedom being violated or pilots or anyone else who operates a craft that maneuvers violently. My tractor has a lap belt and not having to worry about staying in place on uneven ground and still effectively being able to operate, is essential.
Not wearing a seat belt while driving is just an improper way to operate a car and not having a passenger belted allows everyone to become a projectile, which complicates everyone else’s rights to their personal freedom and their right to share the road with other safe drivers. The old "slippery slope " theory applies aptly but only if you start veering out of control while careening down one…bet your asteroid you would do a better job of maintaining control. If you refuse to operate a motor vehicle correctly, which is a privilege, you should NOT be allowed to drive…That includes operating a car while belted in I bet some people would even argue against not being allowed to text as an infringement on their personal freedom. Yet, some how we don’t get that a driver being belted and not texting are both proper ways to operate a moving vehicle.
I was about to make the same point that dagosa just made. If you swerve hard and you’re not belted in, especially with leather seats, you may very well slide around behind the wheel and lose control when you otherwise wouldn’t have. As I might be the one driving toward you when this happens, it’s my business too.
I also agree with the comments about economics. It may be impossible to get actual numbers, but I’m sure that insurance premiums are higher by some amount in states without seat belt laws. People love to complain about insurance rates, so this is one way they can be kept down. That affects me too.
I wear my seat belts and so does everyone that rides with me. It’s safer that way. I might forget to wear one if I’m in a hurry but I’ve become very adept at buckling up while moving down the highway. The Air Force made it a habit for me to buckle up. They had a program back in the 70’s that gave you points if you drove without a seat belt on base. So many points and you were not allowed to drive on base. In addition…after so many points some bases had you standing at the gate and you stood there until you found someone else driving without a seat belt. You were then allowed to leave and that driver got points. It worked and the program may still be in affect today.
""Should we make dietary controls for he obese and diabetic ? “
That WILL come to pass. We will pass laws to discourage behavior that will cost the society. And, it will be rationalized on moral grounds…but bet your life, it’s economics.”
Dag, I agree emphatically.
And I would question whether that is the function of criminal laws. IMHO the more laws and regulations criminalize behaviors deemed by governments to be bad decisions but which are not predatory, than the more we lose our freedoms. The economic beneficiaries become the predators.
Obesity costs society too. Should we criminalize it?
Motorcycles are far more dangerous than cars. Perhaps we should criminalize motorcycles?
You’re more likely to be injured in a small car than a large car in an accident. Should we mandate that all cars be at least 5,000 pounds?
Divorce costs society too. Should we also criminalize that?
The “slippery slope” argument is not based on fallacy. It’s based on reality. To deny it is fallacy.
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
- Martin Niemöller
Agree, there are some rare instances where NOT wearing a belt would have been better. I have personally escaped in jury or death by wearing one, and the company I used to work for had special recognition for being saved injury by wearing a hard hat at construction sites and wearing seat belts when involved in a crash.
Just in the last month here 4 people were killed in car crashes by not being belted up. The investigating officers have to clearly spell out the likely outcome if those HAD been wearing belts. All involved were relatively young drivers.
Same, I cannot disagree that I have used the “slippery slope " argument myself. But, as soon as I do, I would and should reevaluate my position to make sure I an on the right side if an argument and argue the point on it’s own merits. If driving is a privilege and we feel licensing should include requirements that demonstrate proper driving techniques and wearing a seatbelt contributes to my ability to operate a car, I see no " slippery slope” if I agree that premise.
American society HAS social aspects to it where we agree with societies rights as a whole to dictate what freedoms should and should not be practiced where other people’s rights are put at risk. The word " socialism " just doesn’t hold the same negative connotation for me. We have Social Security, the public library, local, state and national police forces…and, we have licensing of drivers that agree to operate vehicles in a way so as not to infringe upon the rights of others. We even practice socialism in our daily lives by not "breaking wind " in public ! Well, at least some do. 
I get the personal rights thing and promote it…when it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others and driving without a seat belt by other drivers, does ! Evetyone is a socialist in some form or another…or they are a hermit.
I remember when seatbelt laws were enacted decades ago. You’d think if it were a “slippery slope,” we’d have slid down it by now.
Anti-smoking laws were enacted because secondhand smoke causes cancer. Trans fats are illegal in many places because they’re deadly, not because we had seatbelt laws in place. You see, each new law is debated on its own merits. Nobody looks at these issues and says, "Well, we require seatbelts, why not make obesity illegal? That’s just now how it works, not in the legislature where laws are made and not in the courts where laws are challenged and upheld.
The argument that somebody's decision to not wear seatbelts is something that doesn't affect anyone else is made moot by the reality that those who are severely injured wind up costing all of us huge sums of money for their medical care
That is 100% true. I lost a good friend when I was 17 who wasn’t wearing his seat-belt when he lost control of his car - hit a curb and he was ejected. If he was wearing a seat-belt he probably would have walked away. But he ended up in the hospital for over a month and then was declared brain dead. Their parents had no way of paying that bill. I’m sure it was tens of thousands (and this was 1970).
I’ve always been torn on seat-belt and helmet laws. I don’t like the idea of government telling me that I MUST wear a seat-belt (although I ALWAYS do). But it’s tough loosing a friend or family member that way.
I think NH was the last state to enact an Adult seat-belt law. We had one for kids under 18 (use to be 12).
Pretty much ALL safety laws across the nation have been pushed by the insurance industry. Seat-belts, ABS, Traction-control, Backup Cameras…etc.
The Insurance industry has tried (unsuccessfully) to push a law in several states that if you are in an accident and NOT wearing a seat-belt then they can deny you coverage.
To you guys who argue against seatbelt laws:
Please explain how you apply your arguments to infants, toddlers, and children. How is it ethical not to buckle them in?
NH didn’t have Adult seat-belt laws for years. But we had car seat laws for children and seat-belt laws for kids under 18. When our children were born…we couldn’t take them out of the hospital unless we had a car-seat.
Dag, I understand your points. However, on truth seatbelt and helmet laws are purely economically motivated rather than necessary to keep society civilized, the latter of which is the function of criminal law.
If the discussion were whether insurance companies should have clauses requiring the wearing of seatbelts and helmets, I’d wholeheartedly agree that they should. And I’d add that their option to deny coverage should the policy holder not be wearing a seatbelt or a helmet should be prominently displayed in bold print on the cover of the policy. Not wearing seatbelts or helmets is stupid. But we should not be criminalizing stupid decisions.
I use the term “socialism” to describe a society wherein much of the economic benefit of work is taken up by taxes and used for the benefit of society as a whole. The English have an excellent socialist system, and I actually like their system. What we do in this country isn’t socialism as I define it. In our system, legislation is promoted by (and usually actually written by) special interest groups for their own economic benefit, and our taxes are taken to pay for the cost of the legislation that gets their votes, campaign contributions, and public support. Our laws are not socialist based. They’re greed based. I’m including in that seatbelt and helmet laws.
Re: The slippery slope argument–as to how it pertains to the issue of same sex marriage.
Some politicians of a conservative nature (Rick Santorum comes to mind) use the slippery slope argument, and say something along the lines of…If we allow people of the same sex to marry, then what is to stop someone from marrying his horse or his dog or his flashlight?
The fallacy of that argument is that courts have consistently upheld the legality of same-sex marriage on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment, IIRC) of The US Constitution, which states that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. Or, in other words, you can’t prevent one group of citizens from enjoying the same rights as other citizens.
And, since horses, dogs, flashlights, and other non-human objects are clearly not citizens, this slippery slope argument is really the Silly Slope argument.
Since Mr. Santorum is an attorney, you would think that he would have enough knowledge of the master document that underlies US law, but…perhaps not.
The only conclusions that I can come to are that either…
…he isn’t as knowledgeable about our Constitution as he should be
or
…that he is knowingly pandering to voters who are ignorant of the content of our Constitution.
I suppose that possibility #2 is a little less insulting to Mr. Santorum’s intellect, but it is surely not a compliment to his ethics.
The conservatives seem to always take the attitude “The Sky is Falling”.
When Seatbelts were mandated into vehicles back in the 60’s…Many conservatives in congress argued that if this law passes - it would impose such a burden on car manufacturers that they’d have to shut down production in the US.
Two years later with the Clean Air act - the same conservatives said that this will cause car manufacturers to stop production and selling cars in the US.
When anti-smoking laws were passed…conservatives said that this law would shut down bars and restaurants all over the country. McDonalds wouldn’t even be able to survive.
Each time new Cafe’ standards were set in place…it was the conservative stance that said these new standards would cause such a hardship on car manufacturers they’ll be out of business in 5 years.
OBVIOUSLY not ONE was true. Not even close. Just some baby crying from idiots.
You’re correct in that marriage is legally limited to humans. People have already tried to marry animals and inanimate objects (see below links). As regards Rick Santorum, he stopped being a lawyer when he became a politician.
Lawyers consider the constitution as something they use their expertise to get around, not something to be considered sacrosanct. That’s the whole reason the colonies demanded of the founders that they create the Bill of Rights before they’d ratify the Constitution. Politicians are only interested in doing what gets and keeps them in office and hope they can get away with it.
http://www.drivingenthusiast.net/sec-blog/?p=1732
http://www.forandagainst.com/You_Should_Be_Able_To_Marry_Animals
It’s interesting to see the progression over time. When I was a kid, no one thought anything of piling a half dozen kids into the open bed of a pickup or an el camino and tooling down the highway to mc donalds for example. We rode around laying on the package tray as well. A bicycle helmet?? Your kid would have been mercilessly teased about it and ostracized. Now, you’d practically be thrown in jail if you let your kid ride without one. this is a span of about 60 years…
“As regards Rick Santorum, he stopped being a lawyer when he became a politician.”
That may be true, but…if I still have a very good working knowledge of The US Constitution almost 5 decades after I studied it in undergraduate school, and ~ 4 decades after I last taught HS students about the Constitution…Wouldn’t you think that somebody who is much younger than I am–and better-educated than I am–would retain his knowledge of that document that underlies all US law?