TA1LGUNN3R wrote:If this is your reasoning for supporting mandatory helmet/seatbelt laws, I expect you to likewise support mandatory diet laws, mandatory eugenics programs, and mandatory prophylactic laws. All of these things contribute to the "higher health insurance premiums" and medical expenses being paid with "taxpayers' funds."
You're confusing a sensible law (drunk driving, e.g.) with an enforced money draw (seat belt laws). I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt or helmet if I don't want to. If I crash my bike and become disabled, I or my family must pay the costs. If I had free healthcare then your argument would be valid, but as it stands the only person that pays is me (legally and morally). The fact that health insurance, a program that has ruined health care in the U.S., decides to increase their premiums has nothing to do with me, because 1) insurance is voluntary, and 2) I've lived almost my entire life without health insurance. Because you wish to buy into the scam of insurance has nothing to do with me, and I shouldn't have to accommodate your lifestyle through enforced programs.
PREACH ON BROTHER!
Haggis_McMutton wrote:Do helmet laws interfere with a person’s freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet?
Yes. Many laws restrict people’s freedom to perform behaviors judged contrary to the public good. These include drunk driving laws, cellphone use laws, and infectious disease quarantine laws, to name a few. Courts usually uphold such laws as important to the nation’s well-being.
Notice a slight distinction between the cases they present and helmet laws? Like maybe how all of those behaviors directly impact others?
Yes they do, but look at all these other bad things that have laws against them!
I'm surprised they didn't add "murder and pedophilia" to the list.
Also, "important to the nation's well-being" is not the standard. The standard is "compelling state interest." Big, humongous difference.
Fucking CDC. BRING ON THE ZOMBIES!