Just had a flashback to a bunch of people being really dumb and upset about the seatbelt laws. A lot of people saying they'd basically just push against the steering wheel to prevent them from flying through the windshield.
Vividly reminds me of a lot of anti-mask arguments today.
What evidence do you have that masks did prevent covid? The burden of proof is on you to show that they were effective if you are going to abridge people's rights. The only clear evidence of masks preventing covid were n95's. Most of the masks worn were not n95's.
First time I'm hearing outside of insular forums that masks did nothing to combat covid spread. Very interested. Do you have any studies that you could point to regarding this?
Actually, yes, I do. I wear a mask in the office every day, I wear a mask when shopping and anywhere else indoors in public. I have not eaten indoors at a restaurant since the pandemic began. And I haven't caught COVID yet.
There's a 1/5 chance of developing Long COVID, and 1/4 change of your Long COVID lasting >1yr. Studies have shown repeated exposure to COVID causes _more_ organ damage, does _not_ increase immunity, and _increases_ risk of developing Long COVID.
There's never been a question about efficacy of masks. We all know masks work, and they work best when everyone is wearing them correctly.
> There's never been a question about efficacy of masks.
Absolutely wrong. There is no evidence that the typical masks worn prevent any spread. There is some evidence that N95s prevent spread, but most people don't wear those.
The closing paragraph on your link that heavily cites the Cochrane Library meta-analysis:
“After all masking and public health measures stopped SARS-1 in its tracks in Toronto, I would view the Cochrane Library meta-analysis findings with a large degree of skepticism.”
and buried within:
“Meta-analysis is a less than optimal methodology to apply to the issue of masking. Almost all included studies varied widely in their methodology, since it is very hard to ethically have a non-masking control group.”
> Actually, yes, I do. I wear a mask in the office every day, I wear a mask when shopping and anywhere else indoors in public. I have not eaten indoors at a restaurant since the pandemic began. And I haven't caught COVID yet.
Sounds excessive and honestly a bit obsessive.
I just followed the government recommendations, wore masks when mandatory, and went to restaurants the minute they were allowed to reopen, and have not caught covid either.
Do you live in a place where covid is still a big risk? Or do you work in a place with higher risks, like healthcare related?
Unfortunately, today's open-office environments and return-to-office mandates are squeezing everyone together just like we were pre-pandemic, including multiple hour-long meetings a day with packed meeting rooms.
If just 1 person present has COVID then those become high-risk environments. And it's happened - we have a large meeting, then the next week multiple people are out sick :(
It sucks. I don't enjoy wearing a mask, I want to eat meals out and go to happy hour, I want to not have to think about the relative risk of every outing and errand. But since the world had decided COVID is not a concern anymore it's left each of us to do their own personal risk management.
I really want to see a "cure" developed to treat/prevent the damage from COVID and or for COVID to evolve into something much more mild like the flu (ha!) which doesn't cause lasting damage. Alas, it is a crapshoot as to what happens when you catch COVID, and it changes each time.
If you're going to wear a mask, do it right - you need at least a real N95 (head straps, not ear straps). The GVS respirator is more comfortable, better fitting, and less breathing resistance than a disposable N95.
Honestly I'd like too. Besides covid I've been sick a few times in the last year and I think a mask would have prevented that. I was really hoping they would be normalized now, for general public health, but it's somehow become a controversial thing in a few places I've lived before. I started noticing weird looks after everybody else stopped wearing one and started getting anxiety about it. Probably sounds dumb but I'd bet I'm not alone. I feel people wear masks less now compared to before covid, I used to at least see one every once in a while but outside of dentist offices and such I haven't seen one in a long, long time.
Flew on a plane earlier this year and I definitely did.
Also always still wear masks in actual healthcare settings or wherever else that I'm asked.
Asking for proof of efficacy in the middle of a pandemic when millions of people are dying is also really weird. My brain might be strange, but it makes me imagine a solider asking for proof of efficacy of covering fire in a war or something like that (and our hospitals definitely turned into a warzone in the middle of the pandemic). Its a temporary restriction to deal with an active threat.
>If the government is going to force people to wear masks, they better have two things in place: 1) proof of necessity and 2) proof of efficacy, both of which there were very valid questions during covid.
Time-travel would make this an effective strategy in a public health context. Until that is developed, a "better safe than sorry" strategy is a perfectly reasonable approach. The entire point of representative government is to outsource difficult decisions to folks who can spend their time going through the details of very challenging trade-offs while the rest of us, you know, go to work.
I do when I take the bus to work. I didn't have a single head cold (or COVID), late 2019-2023. If wearing masks prevents respiratory flu/head colds/whatever, I'm going to wear a mask. I do wear KN-95 masks and I'm careful about fit.
Things like context and situations change, risk assessments change. Vaccination rates, new treatments, n new understanding and information, different strains, have all changed since when mask mandate first came in.
[From a NZ perspective]
Except you don't live in a bubble. Fire fighters, ambulance staff, doctors, nurses etc have to pick you up in pieces and (hopefully) put you back together. The PTSD alone from horrific accidents must be hell on first responders. Can't imagine if we went back to the dark ages and had no seat belts with the cars/speeds we do today.
So yeah on a closed area with no consequence (i.e. no one to rescue you) sure go for your life. But on a public road where people have no option but to rescue you if you fly through the windshield....
The taxpayers have to pay for your care. So it seems like a fair trade-off, if you're going use public roads, wear a seat belt.
I'm not sure your post, while true, is responsive.
Rules are naturally infringements on individual liberty. The question is, which rules can one justify? Put differently, when can the state limit individual liberty? And that naturally raises the question: why is it appropriate in some cases, and not in others?
Your justification points to the consequences to the state in terms of economic cost and I suppose the psychological trauma suffered by emergency personnel.
Let's push your logic further. I understand you're posting from NZ, and I'm posting from America, but we face a drastic obesity crisis here. For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that the main cause of obesity is overeating, and if we restricted the number of calories available to people we'd see a drastic decrease in healthcare costs and so forth. Should the state be allowed to control the food you eat, the number of calories you consume, etc.? If not, why not? Could the state make obese citizens go exercise at state run gyms?
Or consider the effects of social media use on children. There is at this point pretty good evidence that social media use by teenagers, especially girls, leads to negative mental health outcomes (mood disorders like depression, etc.). Can the state limit the amount of time teenagers spend on tiktok or instagram?
My point is, individual choices always have effects on society, insofar as any individual person is a member of a society. The fact that individual choices have negative effects on society broadly cannot itself justify regulating those choices. The justification for state power must be found elsewhere, imo.
It’s interesting to see the New Zealander making an argument based upon social responsibility and the American responding with an argument based upon individual liberty.
Such an argument needs to be rejected though, because it's effectively an open ended mandate to ban all unnecessary activities. "You can't skydive, because that has a risk of death, and therefore your kids might end up on welfare". It's a non sequitur.
These are different kinds of activities though. You don't need to skydive to work. You don't have a choice between skydiving for groceries or someone else skydiving with them to your house. In many locations driving is not optional.
Not only that, but people driving faster because they feel confident in their seat belts hurt other people to a greater degree since they're increasing their own kinetic energy.
I think this is commonly called risk compensation, but I prefer the alternative name risk homeostasis [1].
On the flip side, when trucks hauling heavy, dangerous loads have a frontal collision, their loads go forward through the cab, killing the drivers instantly. Makes them think twice before speeding and tailgating.
In an AI future, maybe we'll have cars that purposefully hurt drivers when the AI determines they're driving recklessly. Don't like it? Turn on autopilot.
I always truck drovers drove - on average - a lot better was because of the very direct impact losing their license would have on their livelihood. Even demerits could effect their work.
Are you really trying to make the argument that America is a more free country than New Zealand? My kids get to have kinder surprise eggs, so there's that at least.
Yes it is, but generally, laws are violations of personal freedoms. An idea sometimes summarized as "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins".
It is less obvious with seatbelt laws, but the idea is the same. Generally, there are limits to the rights to kill yourself through recklessness.
This is because it impacts much more people than you. If you die in a car accident because you didn't wear your seatbelt, first responders are going to try to save you, traffic will be blocked while the police investigates, your friends and family will be devastated, your employer will have to make up for the loss of an employee, other parties in the accident may be traumatized, etc... All that just for your personal freedom of not wearing a seatbelt.
Lawmakers have decided that wearing a seatbelt does a lot of good to society at large (by not having to deal with reckless deaths) in exchange for a small violation in personal freedom. Sometimes it is hard to find a balance between personal freedom and the harm it may cause to others, but seatbelts are among the easy ones.
It always amazes me when discussing seatbelts how few people seem to know that they don't just protect you, they actually make for safer driving for everyone. When a collision occurs or even just in the face of evasive maneuvering the seatbelt keeps the driver in the driver's seat at the controls, and keeps other occupants from becoming projectiles. It's much harder to swerve, brake, or do whatever is necessary when the driver is now sitting in the passengers lap.
No, they are to protect the rest of us from you. If you are not in control of your car, then you are a danger to us all. And being unbelted is a really excellent way to find yourself out of control when something exciting happens on the road.
If it were really just about containing the mess you make when you are ejected from the car, I'd be in favor of making it personal choice. But it's not.
Well this demonstrates the cognitive dissonance of our modern political system. On the one hand we have to accept that motorcycles are both inherently very deadly and accept the legality of their use. Not only that but in most jurisdictions it's legal to ride without a helmet. On the other hand, seat belt fines are perfectly acceptable and only anarchist weirdos would be opposed to them. We also have to be mad at cops for stopping people and questioning them, event though that is the only way to enforce seat belt laws.
I think the US is kind of unique when it comes to motorcycle safety laws (or rather the lack of them) and still 18 states + DC require helmets for all riders. Most states have some age requirements, and only three states have no helmet laws for motorcycles.
Every country in Europe requires a helmet, so does Canada and Mexico.
It’s probably more dangerous for you not to ditch your bike than it is to stay on it when collision is eminent? I can’t confirm this though, but most times I’ve seen an experienced person fall off a bike, they don’t stay on it.
Why? Safety isn't generally about achieving an absolute probability of death. Does it baffle you that human space flight exists in a country that requires wet floor signs?
The spaceflight/floor example does not baffle me at all. It is my responsibility to put up a wet floor sign to keep from harming others. When I am walking near a wet floor, I expect the owner of the floor to limit risk and liability for me and others walking on the floor.
While I always wear a seat belt and will not even move my car without ensuring that my passengers are wearing their seat belts, I don't feel I should tell other drivers what to do inside their cars.
I live in Florida, where motorcycle riders are not required to wear helmets while those riding in cars are required to wear seat belts. It is silly.
I live in Washington state and all motorcycle riders are required to wear a helmet, just like all motorcycle riders in California, DC and 16 other US states, as well as motorcycle riders in Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, all of Europe, etc.
Like I said: Most jurisdictions require motorcycle riders to wear pretty through safety gear, such as a helmet and protective clothing.
Motorcycle safety gear is great for keeping the corpse in one package. I don’t see how it does anything to keep the rider from being ejected from the vehicle. It baffles me that we are very paternal about drivers of cars and allow motorcycle riders on the same roads.
You know this isn’t true. They do tests on this gear (particularly the helmets), and they are required to pass a number of these tests and fulfill a certain standard. If this gear provided no additional safety, then these tests would show it.
This is unless you believe the tests don’t really reflect reality, but then you are objecting science accepted by several regulatory bodies. You’ll have to give me more evidence than your word against decades of experiments and expert opinions.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like you are implying that the organs of some people are worth more than the lives the same same people.
Regardless, the discussion has come a long way from:
Motorcycles should be banned if seatbelts are enforced
→ But motorcycles have safety laws as well to protect the rider
→ Not where I live
→ But in other places they do
→ Well I’ll imply—but not state—that those safety rules don’t protect the riders
→ But the safety gear does* protect riders*
→ And then something about organ harvesting of accidents.
This is a silly debate. You’ve convinced me of nothing, you had a point there somewhere, but it got lost in irrelevance. Both motorcycle riders and automobile drivers have safety gear for their own self preservation which they are required to use in most places. Yes there are exceptions to this (such as Florida; or riders of scooters/light motorcycles) but also to cars (New Hampshire does not have seat belt requirements to 17+; neither do many states in India; Bus riders don’t have to wear seat belts in many places; tractors don’t require seat belts; etc.)
Sorry, *16 additional states. The total is 19 (including DC).
29 have some age restrictions, where people under a certain age must wear helmets while riding, and only 3 have no laws requiring riders to wear helmets. I think Puerto Rico has a pretty strict helmet wearing law since 2007[1]. I haven’t found any data about the other territories.
The whole point of this country is if you want to eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so. To me, that's beautiful. - Ron Swanson
And then we came to the collective realization that—while great in theory—letting people unintentionally suicide themselves through carelessness and neglect imposes costs borne by the rest of society.
What about people that make healthy choices and live long enough to bear cancer a few times, shake off a few other diseases, have hips replaced, collect endless Medicare and SS payments, etc?
The person who blows their heart out at 53 probably costs a whole lot less VS what they put into society.
Sure, your weird struck-by-lightning-57-times strawman might cost more than your average suicide-by-mcdonalds person. But healthy people are more productive and are productive for longer and only a vanishingly small portion of them are ever going to get struck by lightning once, let alone 57 times.
> But healthy people are more productive and are productive for longer
Not nearly as long as they live, sucking up healthcare resources.
"Unhealthy" people like smokers and the obese are more cost-effective, because they're nearly as productive per year and they die before needing the absurdly expensive medical care for old age.
People use the vast majority of their lives medical expenditure in their last year or so of life if they make it to old age. Someone dying in their 50s before they hit the ground coats very little. Saying that I hope everyone lives long healthy lives.
They're not vanishing silently and peacefully into the night, they're killing themselves with chronic poor health. That's the entire problem, they're not dodging it, they're embracing, amplifying, and accelerating it.
The problem isn't that people don't realize the behavioral issue here, it is that "we" can't decide on out to best mitigate the costs. People don't really seem able to address this as absolutists keep dominating the discussions not allowing any progress as that invariably requires compromises they are unwilling to make.
The primary effect of seatbelt laws is fundraising through pointless fines.
And some informed folks have even argued that in modern vehicles airbags are so effective seatbelts could be worsening accident outcomes. (Elon Musk made this point in one of his podcast appearances re: Teslas)
If you want to make this argument, you can at least provide some data on how much some police departments make by collecting seat belt fines, and compare it to other fines and cost of operation. I doubt the seat belt fines are significant enough to warrant this speculation.
The airbag argument is even worse. Modern vehicles go through numerous safety standard tests, including real world experiments where test dummies are put in an actual car crash. If seat belts make the crash worse for the dummy than airbag alone, these tests would have shown it, and there would be publications about it in a peer reviewed science journal. If you are so confident, you should be able to find at least one such publication. I doubt you will.
Having been in a roll over accident, yes air bags saved me from braining myself on the door window (I quite appreciate that side curtain airbag now) but would have done sweet fuck all for keeping me actually in my seat during the events.
Most laws and regulations are violations of personal freedoms. You can't enact the law of not killing somebody else without violating the personal freedom to do so as a simple but clear example.
Anyways this article talks more about the details of events that happened surrounding the regulations.
It's only a violation of personal freedom in the most obtuse sense where anything that dissuades or prevents you from doing anything you want (everybody's so creative) is an infringement on your personal freedoms. There's this saying that, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; as for Americans, when all you care about is personal freedom, everything looks like an infringement.
Something that went largely ignored by the personal freedom crowd during the pandemic is one's right to life. The government is duty-bound to protect your right to life, or at least it should be. And so it's not much of a decision between requiring masks to enter certain spaces versus letting vast swaths of the population die. (There's a great book about this called Emergency State by Adam Wagner).
Here in the UK, the zeitgeist around the seatbelt wearing is different: there's not much, if any objection to seatbelt laws. And no doubt part of that is our socialised healthcare system: you not wearing a seatbelt is a direct burden on the taxpayer. You guys in America don't have socialised healthcare, or at least nowhere near to the same extent, but the question still remains the same... you still have insurance. Are you okay with your insurance premiums paying for stupid people inflicting themselves with entirely preventable injuries from taking an ideological stance against seatbelts? Your premiums will likely go up the more this happens. I remember one rather harrowing conversation with an American who said that, in such situations, the insurance company should be able to deny coverage... and I guess I'm just horrified at what kind of society that is that discards its citizens to die like that.
Another point is that you are infinitely less able to control a vehicle in an accident while flying through the windscreen, so not wearing a seatbelt is not only a deadly danger to yourself, but poses an inherent risk to other drivers and pedestrians. And depending on the accident, you becoming a projectile can and will kill other people in the car (eg: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y3InF19dzlM). Does this not matter?
Dying early is a bigger violation of personal freedom depending on how you frame freedom philosophically.
Ignoring delayed gratification or the future could make seatbelts seem like a violation of personal freedom. But living another 40 years because of a seatbelt could enable more opportunities for personal freedom.
Yep, they are by definition. Personally, I'm strongly against a government causing harm to you if you decide differently on what you like to do in such matters
I'm literally saying that people dying of preventable deaths is seen as an acceptable price for society to pay so that a tiny few aren't inconvenienced or have their feelings hurt.
If this idea sounds radical and needlessly trolling to you, it should. But this is not some sort of straw man. It is literally a popular position in contemporary American politics among those on the right. [1]
For seatbelts we had on one side of the ledger preventable deaths, injuries, and if we're being callous, the economic drain that results from that. We also knew from looking at other countries that had these problems, that seatbelt laws massively reduce those negatives. On the other side we had, "But I don't wanna."
When it comes to mass shootings in America, we've had 427 as of yesterday, the 218th day of 2023.[0] That's almost two a day. The United States is literally the only country where this happens. We know the solutions. We can look at how Australia reacted when they had a kindergarten murdered in 1996, and how they haven't had a similar instance since. When America had a kindergarten murdered in a similar way, the government shrugged it off, and even talking about reform was shouted down, because of "freedom".
That's what I'm talking about. So if putting it out in such straightforward terms makes you uncomfortable, it should, because it's literally people dying and a majority of Americans wanting the dying to stop, versus a small number saying, "I don't care. I don't wanna. Your dead kid is the price I'm willing to pay to keep my hobby."
Yeah, I don't think you realise to the degree that your point-scory comments seem to imply that you're anti-seatbelt and pro teachers with guns. It's not uncommon for anti-seatbelters to argue that seatbelts cause injuries and deaths of their own. And thanking shooting victims for their service is exactly the kind of spiteful rhetoric Republicans say in gun control discussions.
You can think me uncomfortable, but I'm not. Now that you're actually being clear in your words, I can state that we're in agreement. I'd tone down the attitude though.
Sweetheart, of course it's obvious to you. Of the two people that responded to you, neither knew what you were talking about. If you don't wish to heed anyone's advice, that's on you. Byyyeee.
Seriously? Regardless of your view on seat belt laws (or drunk driving laws for this matter) the difference is blindingly obvious: A drunk driver is _highly_ likely to kill someone else (I think I may have heard in the past that they are more likely to kill someone else than die themselves, although I'm not super confident on it). If you aren't wearing a seat belt, you're just going to kill yourself.
While this does seem like it's true [0], at least in that case the other passengers know whether or not you are wearing a belt, and can, in extremis, choose not to ride with you (I'm going to ignore minors for the moment as that is a different and much more nuanced topic). When it comes to drunk drivers, other people on the road don't even know they are taking the risk. And of course, that ignores the fact that seatbelt laws do not differentiate between when you are driving alone (extremely common in the US) vs. with passengers.
Yeah, like red lights, speed limits, licensing, and most of the rules that govern driving on the road. Unless you're a sovereign citizen it's a privilege and not a right.
ha, I'm old and I remember this shit. I also remember the armageddon of indoor smoking bans, which as predicted ended the entire restaurant and bar industry. You kids are really missing out on the sight of dirty ashtrays at every table, and your laundry smelling like a pack of stale marlboros after a night out on the town.
I actually don't quite know why seatbelts are mandatory.
Of course not wearing one is a terrible idea. But smoking isn't banned, neither is walking drunk in cliff paths. It is also one of those things where the damage is pretty much entirely to yourself.
I see some exceptions, namely mandatory seatbelts for children (who benefit from enhanced protection of the state) and protecting first responders - though if you flew out of your car due to not wearing a seatbelt, I don't think you'll need any aid at all.
There are some comparisons to face masks in this thread, but I don't think they apply since face masks at least in theory protected others, even more than that oneself.
So you have a prayer of staying in control of your car in the event you have to execute an emergency maneuver. If you're struggling to even stay in the seat, you are not in control of that two ton hunk of steel hurtling down the road.
If you were one of many passengers and not wearing your seatbelt then you become a projectile inside the cabin. Wearing your seatbelt is important to the safety of others.
If you are on your own in your own car, I suppose you don’t have to wear the seatbelt. Same as not wearing a mask when you’re alone
These discussions even happened in countries with military conscription. Forced to serve was ok, but seat belts were considered a step too far in terms of personal freedom...
It's a shame we'll never truly know how many people have lost their lives due to seatbelt laws being overly narrow in how they define the requirements of seatbelts. If not for these foolish laws we'd likely have the option to buy 5-point harnesses such as the ones race car drivers enjoy -- but instead we're stuck with the same rudimentary excuses for a safety device that was being used on roads in the 60s.
I used to be an AMA member because of the roadside assistance until I realized that they spend a ton of their membership dues fighting helmet laws. AAA has great motorcycle and car assistance too for about the same price.
There are to separate issues here, which became conflated:
1. regulations requiring manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars
2. laws requiring motorists to wear said seatbelts
The former is not a violation of personal freedom, the latter is.
But then for some insane reason corporations got the rights of individuals, and here we are inadvertently defending manufacturers vs. #1 when all we care about is #2.
So I agree that the two things are not the same, but also, there is a (much weaker) argument against #1 from a personal freedom perspective that has nothing to do with "companies are individuals".
By forcing manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars, you are, in essence, forcing individuals to buy cars with seatbelts, regardless of whether or not they want them.
Even if you didn't have #2, if you have #1, you are forcing someone who doesn't want to use a seatbelt to pay for a seatbelt.
Like I said, admittedly a much weaker argument than that against forcing people to wear them, but there is a personal freedom argument against #1
Sure, but you still paid for it. And, modulo that you want to buy a car, yes, you are being forced to buy one with a seat belt. The kind of car you are allowed to buy is being limited. I already acknowledged its a much weaker impingement on personal freedom but there is a thing someone might want to buy (a car without seatbelts), and you aren't allowed to buy it. I think it's pretty clear, even if one doesn't think it's a big deal.
You can’t have this both ways - if personal freedom is violated by seatbelt laws then buying a car or not is also your personal freedom regardless if it comes with things you want or not.
You don’t get to treat force as a transitive property when it suits you and isolated when it doesn’t - its one or the other.
Absent government action, there is a thing I would be free to do: buy a car without seatbelts, with government action, this is a thing I can no longer do. I honestly do not understand the confusion here, or what "transitive force" you are talking about. You are free to think that this is minor, or doesn't matter, or is justified, or anything else, but to completely deny that it is _any_ level of impingement on personal freedom is just.....baffling.
> Absent government action, there is a thing I would be free to do: buy a car without seatbelts
You are entirely free to buy cars without seatbelts.
It's the manufacturers who are prevented from selling cars without seatbelts, nor headlights below a certain height, nor unsafe chinesium non-DOT-legal tires. Hell, aren't backup cameras required on new cars sold in the US now?
And I'm pretty sure if a manufacturer sold you a car without seat belts, you could buy it, and it would be the manufacturers problem you could force them to correct at no cost.
But you'd be breaking the law driving it around without wearing seat belts, which is the part of all this I take issue with.
You are getting into the weeds a little bit to the point that it's not really the question (or, rather, it would have been a more relevant comment higher up thread, this has sort of diverted to a more generic philosophical discussion largely disconnected to the orginal question).
In point of fact I think you are correct. I believe that any manufacturer _can_ make a car without seat belts, and any person can buy it. You just can't register it with the DMV because it won't be street legal, which is indeed a much more nuanced regulation with, at the very least, an even weaker personal freedom argument than previous.
So the actual regulation as it exists is not exactly what was originally stated in the first comment. I was replying to that comment as stated.
No one is stopping you from buying a car without seatbelts. Companies are being restricted from selling a car without seatbelts. Companies aren't people.
If you believe this is a restriction of your personal freedom, then ANY regulation on ANY company that you might interact with, for anything at all is a restriction of your personal freedom as well - because those actions ultimately could result in the company not providing a good or service that you desire.
And if that is your definition of personal freedom, then you should clarify your position as an anarchist.
>then ANY regulation on ANY company that you might interact with, for anything at all is a restriction of your personal freedom as well - because those actions ultimately could result in the company not providing a good or service that you desire.
Very nearly this YES. I don't think it's quite that absolute, but pretty close! Many, many restrictions on personal freedom are entirely justified, and are in fact extremely good, to the point that almost no one disagrees they are warranted, but they are most definitely still restrictions on personal freedom. I am not an anarchist who thinks that the government shouldn't exist or that personal freedom is literally the only value that matters, but that doesn't mean we should lie to ourselves about the fact that, in order to live in a functioning society, countless of our personal freedoms have to be given up. Many of them are so small and inconsequential that most people never even notice, but that doesn't change the fact that we have given them up.
If your definition of personal freedom also includes restrictions on entities that are not you, then your personal freedom is fundamentally at odds with literally any other person having personal freedom as well.
I don't see how this definition is meaningful or useful for society.
If you don’t want to wear a seatbelt you’re a complete and utter moron. Why are trying to preserve these people? Scrape them off the road before they can pass on DNA.
Highly doubt that. I’d imagine people that don’t wear belts are much riskier drivers and have accidents with higher fatality rates. Hold everything constant and bodies flying into each other aren’t needle movers.
I remember when the law went into effect- I was in Florida visiting my grandparents and there was an article arguing against seat belts- saying, in particular, that in case of a crash, a person not wearing a seatbelt could be "thrown free of the crash".
No, that's not how it works. In 99% of cases, being thrown free of the vehicle is a terrible thing to happen. It kind of reminds me of the various "arguments" being made against vaccines- the ones simply ignorant of physics, chemistry, and biology.
A friend of mine just told me her boyfriend doesn't wear a seatbelt as civil disobedience. I don't get it any more than I'd understand illegally burning your own house down or dumping used motor oil in your backyard, but you're not wrong--people are still pushing back.
Vividly reminds me of a lot of anti-mask arguments today.