I’m curious about your opposition to seatbelt laws, seeing as not wearing one can potentially turn you into a dangerous projectile that could cause harm to others.
That’s not how anyone justifies that law, ever. “Human projectile harms to other people than the projectile” are very rare. No one optimizes this. It is a bad faith argument I’m pretty sure?
However, engaging with it as if it were in good faith… (maybe it is a good faith thought experiment?)
...you could have people buy extra insurance for paying out extra damages on that specific additional liability “having your body go flying and smash into other people” harm, and get a little logo on your insurance card, and that logo would mean cops couldn’t ticket you for seat belt stuff.
That would be the same move of “opting-out of coercive paternalism while complying with coherent and valid demands to protect others from harms via negligence or accident”.
If you can find someone who wrote a coherent article whose central pro-seatbelt argument is based on how seatbelts protect third parties from being struck by the catapulting bodies of idiots who didn’t wear their seatbelt, I’m happy to change my mind.
I’m curious about your opposition to seatbelt laws, seeing as not wearing one can potentially turn you into a dangerous projectile that could cause harm to others.
That’s not how anyone justifies that law, ever. “Human projectile harms to other people than the projectile” are very rare. No one optimizes this. It is a bad faith argument I’m pretty sure?
However, engaging with it as if it were in good faith… (maybe it is a good faith thought experiment?)
...you could have people buy extra insurance for paying out extra damages on that specific additional liability “having your body go flying and smash into other people” harm, and get a little logo on your insurance card, and that logo would mean cops couldn’t ticket you for seat belt stuff.
That would be the same move of “opting-out of coercive paternalism while complying with coherent and valid demands to protect others from harms via negligence or accident”.
Are you sure nobody justifies the law based on that? There are laws about tying down payloads on pickup trucks for exactly this reason.
If you can find someone who wrote a coherent article whose central pro-seatbelt argument is based on how seatbelts protect third parties from being struck by the catapulting bodies of idiots who didn’t wear their seatbelt, I’m happy to change my mind.