RE: [lpsf-discuss] Federal Nanny State Strikes Again - Using Your Tax Dollars

Good article provided by Ron Getty on seat belt laws; and by extension, all laws that regulate behavior which theoretically affects only ourselves.

1. I used to drive an old Pinto Wagon that had only lapbelts, and I was regularly stopped by law enforcement officers. Did not like that one bit!

2. The key word in my comment on the article is "theoretically." Unfortunately, in a welfare state such as the one we live in today, we are all affected by "personal behavior," since we all pay for services that may be called upon to remedy the results of such behavior. We all pay through the tax system, in one way or another, for rescue vehicles, public hospitals, state disability insurance, Medicare, Medical, etc. etc. Also, the market price of private services is also affected by the welfare state; HMO's and other private care providers are not allowed to pick and choose who they treat, so they must remedy the results of all behavior, and spread the cost to all customers.

3. Do I think, therefore, that seatbelt laws and other such laws are good? Not at all. However, libertarian opposition to them should perhaps include a word of aknowledgement as to why such laws are easily enacted by our various legislative bodies -- people are just trying to cut their losses.

Marcy

From: Ronald Getty <tradergroupe@...>
Reply-To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Federal Nanny State Strikes Again - Using Your Tax Dollars
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:42:21 -0800 (PST)

Dear Everyone;

Fox News printed this article from the Chairman of the Cato Institute about a proposal to compel states to enact seat belt laws. The incentive is $400 million of tax payers money to get the laws enacted. As he said in his story if the federal government is so concerned about people hurting themselves in accidents because they did not use seatbelts why not force states to reduce the speed limit to 10 mph?

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106757,00.html

The Nanny State Strikes Again

Friday, December 26, 2003
By William A. Niskanen
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who must have little else to do, has recently urged state governments to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt.

And the Bush administration has proposed a $400 million incentive to reward state governments that pass such laws.

These proposals represent a continued confusion of what is individually wise with what ought to be politically required. I always wear a seat belt because it is among the most effective means, short of not driving, to protect my own safety. The issue is whether that is a sufficient basis for requiring others to follow my example. I suggest not, because there is no benefit to me from other drivers also wearing a seat belt. I may be even safer if other drivers do not wear a seat belt, because their perception of increased safety may lead them to drive more aggressively.

The estimates of the potential reduction in traffic fatalities and related costs from mandatory seat belt laws may be correct but are irrelevant; a reduction of the speed limit to 10 m.p.h., for example, would lead to an even larger reduction in traffic fatalities.

There must be more important things for police to do than to monitor seat belt usage. Surely, there must be more important uses of $400 million than to bribe state governments to pass such laws. New Hampshire is now the only state that has no seat-belt law; voters in New Hampshire would be well served by asking the gaggle of candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination about their views on this issue.

The more disturbing observation is that mandating seat belt use is only one of an increasing number of cases in which politicians have confused wide-spread personal behavior with a public health problem. Smoking and over-eating are also dangerous to one's personal health but with little or no cost to other parties. Do we really want the type and level of government intrusion that would be necessary to monitor and enforce a political standard affecting routine decisions on such matters as driving, smoking, and eating--matters that with good information we should decide by ourselves?

Good research on the effects of personal behavior and succinct, accurate information about such research can be valuable to all of us, but it is not a sufficient basis for a political decision that would set legal limits on such behavior. People should have the right to make their own mistakes about behavior that has no significant negative effects on the rest of us.

Our government, maybe even Secretary Mineta, has important tasks to perform. But the popular support for the conduct of such tasks is undermined by the proliferation of mandates about our personal behavior.

William A. Niskanen is chairman of the Cato Institute and was a senior economic adviser to President Reagan.

Marcy,

  These are good points. A similar phenomenon can be seen when it comes to immigration laws. Some people support such laws, just like others support seatbelt laws, because they don't want to have to subsidize anyone else's health care costs, insurance, etc. Like you said, it doesn't mean we should stop trying to repeal immigration controls, but we should acknowledge that support for such laws is fueled by the welfare state spreading around the costs of personal behavior.
  
Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 01:21 PM, Marcy Berry wrote (in part):

Hi Starchild,

My response to your e-mail regarding immigration does not seem to
have gone through, so I am responding again. Better you get two
responses than believe I did not answer at all, I think.

You compared my view on the cost of public services to my view on
the "cost" of immigration. You are correct, both issues involve
a "cost." Public services in a welfare state are a direct cost to
taxpayers and to consumers, and the result of open borders might, in
the short run, result in an indirect opportunity cost as people flow
from areas of less resources to areas of greater resources until all
areas are equalized. And yes indeed, I can do just fine without laws
affecting both issues; all I ask is an acknowledgement of costs with
and without laws in place.

Marcy

Marcy,

  These are good points. A similar phenomenon can be seen when

it comes

to immigration laws. Some people support such laws, just like

others

support seatbelt laws, because they don't want to have to subsidize
anyone else's health care costs, insurance, etc. Like you said, it
doesn't mean we should stop trying to repeal immigration controls,

but

we should acknowledge that support for such laws is fueled by the
welfare state spreading around the costs of personal behavior.
  
Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

On Sunday, December 28, 2003, at 01:21 PM, Marcy Berry wrote (in

part):

> 2. The key word in my comment on the article is "theoretically."
> Unfortunately, in a welfare state such as the one we live in

today, we

> are
> all affected by "personal behavior," since we all pay for

services

> that may
> be called upon to remedy the results of such behavior. We all

pay

> through
> the tax system, in one way or another, for rescue vehicles, public
> hospitals, state disability insurance, Medicare, Medical, etc.

etc.

> Also,
> the market price of private services is also affected by the

welfare

> state;
> HMO's and other private care providers are not allowed to pick

and

> choose
> who they treat, so they must remedy the results of all behavior,

and

> spread
> the cost to all customers.
>
> 3. Do I think, therefore, that seatbelt laws and other such laws

are

> good?
> Not at all. However, libertarian opposition to them should

perhaps

> include
> a word of aknowledgement as to why such laws are easily enacted

by our