Originally shared by Tom de LorenzoSo I'm kinda old-ish, and when I was a kid the family would pile into the car and drive across the country and no one wore seat belts and the kids bounced around from the front seat to the back.
Then the seat belt laws came around, and parents began to buckle up themselves and their children.
Why? Because no one wanted a ticket, that's why.
But then I have heard statements from folks even older than me that were along the lines of "Well, I think it's a good idea that the seat belt laws came around. We were foolish to let kids ride along untethered. We didn't know any better, even though it seems so obvious now. It's definitely better this way."
I'm sure this is a very common sentiment, but it really is odd, and really points to an unfortunately common mindset.
It's quite fine to admit ignorance about this particular safety issue. But it is also admitted that a general enlightenment spread and the majority of people received the safety message.
But then there was that extra little step: It wasn't sufficient to just have the dangers of children riding in cars without seat belts on pointed out to everyone. It became necessary to make the act a punishable offense.
And so: "I'm glad the authorities will punish me for doing something potentially dangerous, because I would deserve it."
This is very different from:
"I shouldn't expose my kids to unnecessary potential dangers, because I love them and am responsible for them and don't want to cause them harm."
Of course there's always the "Well, the law is good because there are a lot of parents who are careless with their children, and this will save some lives."
So that means that a person who doesn't mind risking the lives of his/her children will not want to risk getting a $50 ticket?
The unfortunately common mindset I referred to above is one of "I am the student in the classroom and the teacher told us that we shouldn't do this or that and we better all obey or we will be punished. And if I am going to be punished for something, then I will make sure that everyone else gets punished for the same thing if I see it happening."
Do you really need someone threatening you with a hickory-switch to get you to minimize risks to yourself and your loved ones? Do you think it's a good idea to threaten others in order to get them to likewise be better 'protected' from themselves?
Because the other negative effect that this kind of thinking creates is that everyone is in everyone else's business. Kids are too fat. Ban big drinks. Too many folks with cancer. Tax cigarettes. Too many kids doing poorly in school. More funding and new curricula.
You're supposed to look out for yourself and your loved ones. That's your business and your responsibility. When you begin to force others to behave in a manner you see fit—or else, you allow others to force you to behave according to their preferences—or else.
And that's a really bad trade-off. Because no matter how reasonable a law may be, if the precedent is "We can punish you for behaving in a certain manner, even if you are not directly harming anyone," then it's all downhill from there. Pretty soon there are plants you can't grow, foods you can't eat, and places where you can't use a phone, take a picture, or drive past without having your breath checked.
Make no mistake: EVERYTHING can be construed to have an effect on society, and so is subject to government regulation for 'the common good.' There are no limits here. You sure you want to open up that box?
The income tax began having a 1% maximum tax on the highest bracket. A mostly harmless and useful tool for helping the nation get a little extra revenue. But the precedent was set, and downhill was the only available direction to move.
Laws should not be used to regulate human behavior that does not directly cause harm to others. Vices are not crimes.
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm