5 ms·
the point here is that It seems entiterly arbitrary to enforce seat-belts but not enforce vaccine-shots. in a constitutional state mandates should not be arbit
by overhero 5y ago
the point here is that It seems entiterly arbitrary to enforce seat-belts but not enforce vaccine-shots.
in a constitutional state mandates should not be arbitrarys, that's a defining characteristic actually.
so either you have seatbelt laws and vaccine mandates,
or you have no vaccine mandates, but also don't enforce seatbelts.
then if you decide to enforce seatbelts, where do you stop?
smokeing, obesity, extreme sports, going outside without a proper reason ... you needed to outlaw all of these "risky-activities" for the good of society then!
- noduerme 5y agoIt's not arbitrary. There is a clear, bright line between things individuals do that only endanger themselves - or which are wildly unlikely to endanger others - versus those which do endanger others. That's why drunk driving is a felony and not wearing a seatbelt is a minor violation. Even more importantly, it's why drunk driving or not being vaccinated is unethical, while not wearing a seatbelt is merely unlawful.
- ifyoubuildit 5y agoOne difference is that you can decide to stop wearing your seatbelt if we learn at some point that seat belts are actually more harmful than helpful. Rather than saying if we mandate one thing, we should mandate everything, we could just evaluate each of them individually. And since that's what we actually do, and these decisions are made by different people at different times (because of elections, appointments, etc), some inconsistency seems inevitable.
- noduerme 5y agoHow dare you be logical on the internet.