The question is simple really, should helmets be mandatory for everyone regardless of age when they partake in sports and activities like:
- skiing
- snowboarding
- biking
- rollerblading
- skateboarding
- etc
The libertarian streak in me says hell no, you shouldn't mandate helmets. What's next. Mandate everyone gets their full servings of fruit and vegetables? And of course their exercise?
The fiscal conservative in me says, hey, why the hell should I pay the health care costs of some idiot who bashed their head doing a risky activity and not wearing a helmet. A helmet could have prevented the injury, or at least reduced its severity.
At the end of the day, I am going to vote for mandatory helmet laws. This position may not be popular with many readers of the Blogging Tories, but it is the most common sense. Unlike healthy eating or exercise, it will be much simpler to ensure skiers and their ilk wear helmets, you can't get on the lift without your helmet. You get spotted on the hill without your helmet your pass is canceled and off you go.
I, as a hardworking tax payer don't want to see my scarce tax dollars treating injuries that can be mitigated by wearing the proper safety equipment. If someone really wants to not wear a helmet, they can self-insure themselves in case of accident or injury.
Am I right or wrong? Tell me what you think.
12 comments:
There's a much cleaner solution to having tax dollars pay for activities you find "unreasonable".
You are wrong.
You are wrong because the argument from pragmatic self-interest is based on a false premise, namely, since Canadian health care is fiscally coercive via taxation, this justifies coercing the behaviour of another in order to mitigate the impact of the initial charge.
This is like saying that, in order to reduce your likelihood of being mugged, no one should be permitted to carry cash in their wallets, only credit cards.
If your wish to argue from pragmatism, then you must take a societal perspective. Unlike quarantine laws, there is scant damage to society if the odd individual busts his head doing something stupid. Indeed, there is societal gain, as an object lesson in responsibility and caution.
The entire issue is being discussed in the absence of data. I have not seen any evidence that regulation of morally neutral behaviour yields a safer, harmonious, and fiscally prudent society. Drinking alcohol has deleterious impact on society, since it is known that a segment of the population is predisposed to alcoholism and its attendant social ills. Yet we have had ample evidence that prohibition did far more harm than good.
You are arguing for prohibition. The odds are the societal effect will be the opposite of what you intend.
Now, you can base your argument on foundations other than pragmatism – morality is an option.
No they should just ban skiing. If it saves one life and all that crap and think of all the health care money we will save on broken legs.
Tenebris I am not arguing for prohibition. I am arguing for some commonsense safety equipment. The helmet debate is exactly the same the debate that occurred when seat belt regulation was introduced.
Does anyone still seriously debate the merits of seat belt regulation? Airbags? ABS?
And your example of mugging is flawed. The correct argument would be, reduce your chances of being mugged by introducing concealed carry laws.
The Libertarian in me says that the most sacred of private properties is myself. I would think that a Libertarian would consider that a government to come along and suggest how I should conduct myself down a ski hill smacks of stakeholder status, in other words, that the government has presumed some ownership over my person. Personally, that's an anathema to my view of the function of government. I am not a subject of the government and no democracy can rightly make it so.
If someone exercises a personal choice. that is clearly a matter of free will, which impacts others through a social program, then the Libertarian would declare that, in fact, it is the social program that is in error and not the freedom to choose one's own destiny.
By what right did the generations before us cede our rights to self determination in the name of social programs? In fact, when we handed over our personal responsibilities to the government was it part of the deal that in future it could be used as a coercive force to check our behaviour? And even if past generations had knowingly sacrificed our individual rights would the Libertarian now say it was the righteous decision?
If it is common sense to wear a helmet, then why does one need legislation?
If you have succumbed to the notion that social programs are indeed justification for government ownership of the destiny of each and every individual within its jurisdiction then I suggest you change the name of your blog to "Real Tyranny".
PS.. sorry if this ends up posted twice
I'm with Tenebris on this one. We just shouldn't be regulating everything we do. Life is about making choices and taking risks. We need to stop regulating and banning the fun out of life.
If somebody wants to ski without a helmet, they're not causing any danger to anyone but themself. That should be entirely their choice.
As far as your 'fiscal conservative' argument regarding the health care system goes, well, that's just part of the crap that comes with a public health system. It would be better to change the health system. As long as we choose to have public health care, we're always going to be treating illnesses where someone can find an argument that it was in some way or somehow preventable.
In this specific case, how do you even know that a helmet wouldn't cause higher costs? It's possible that someone who dies quickly of their injuries would cost fewer of your tax dollars than someone who might endure a long and expensive medical treatment because a helmet prevented their death but not their injury. We just don't know.
johndoe124 asks "If it is common sense to wear a helmet, then why does one need legislation?"
Because commonsense isn't so common.
Dave we are not changing the health care system. We never will. It is a sacred cow. Because of this, we need to live within it.
There is a difference between the clear cause and effect of risky behavior without protective equipment and people getting diseases/ailments. Healthy living only reduces your chances of cancer, heart disease etc.
I am all for personal responsibility, the problem is that most people don't have it. And I HAVE to bear the cost.
"johndoe124 asks "If it is common sense to wear a helmet, then why does one need legislation?"
Because commonsense isn't so common."
Unbelievable. What a cop-out. You propose the argument and then scurry for the recesses of oblivion when called upon to back it up.
How about addressing some of the other points I've brought up? Oh, but you have, haven't you?
"I am all for personal responsibility, the problem is that most people don't have it. And I HAVE to bear the cost."
Yes, through the blunt instrument of government, rather than fight for individual rights, you are quite happy to exercise authority over other peoples' lives, something no true Libertarian would ever dream of.
Like I said above, "Real Tyranny" is a much better moniker for your blog.
AnonymousCoward said...
Dave we are not changing the health care system. We never will. It is a sacred cow. Because of this, we need to live within it.
Nothing is sacred. And because you're not willing to either try to fix the health system or live with it and pay for the unknown and unproven medical costs a helmet ban might save, you're willing to further sacrifice personal freedoms?
Trying to fix one problem by creating additional problems is not really a good strategy.
There is a difference between the clear cause and effect of risky behavior without protective equipment and people getting diseases/ailments. Healthy living only reduces your chances of cancer, heart disease etc.
How so? Unhealthy living choices, such as smoking, can cause far more disease and medical expenses than skiing without a helmet. Yet we don't ban smoking. We have smoking bans in certain places to protect 3rd parties from the effects, but the individual smoker is free to injest as much as they please. How much of our health care budget is used to treat lung cancer vs. head injuries in skiing accidents? I think you'll find that skiing accidents are the cheaper expense.
And what is your definition of 'risky behaviour'? Do you plan to ban people from doing anything that might be consider a risk to their health?
Going skiing in general is risky. Even with a helmet, you could still hit a tree and break your neck. There are many sports that carry a risk, and many people are hurt and killed every year doing them. There are all kinds of non-sporting related activities that are risky.
People have rights over their own bodies, and bans like this infringe on that. If you don't like the health care costs, then either fix the health system or stop complaing about the cost of accidents. Controlling our every move is not the answer.
So I suppose you will advocate for a repeal of the selt belt laws, helmet laws for motobikes, etc?
AC - Yup. I want them all repealed, precisely for the reasons I gave earlier.
Post a Comment