This attitude of 'I am okay with the government taking away my choices to protect me from myself as long as it's a small inconvenience' is unprincipled. How would you write such a ridiculous notion in legalese? Anyways, it is convenient to you because you don't ride a motorcycle (nor do I). It isn't convenient to the guy who must spend 80 bucks on a helmet and carry it around with him everywhere.
Again you are completely missing that such actions have implications beyond you yourself. So then we should make law based on what is convenient to motorcycle drivers? Like it or not regulations exist that many of us find inconvenient. In the realm of inconvenience a helmet is a very small price to pay. Lets not forget also that riding a motorcycle isn't a right but a privilege that is largely made possible because of public roadways.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. My point was; either you believe the government should try to protect you from yourself by eliminating your choices (i.e. making you eat healthy, exercise, take precautions when you ride your motorcycle) or you don't. To take the view 'yes, but only when it is convenient to me' is to vote present and not be principled. You should make law based on not trying to protect people from themselves. Every motorcycle driver is an adult who can make their own decisions. Why do you want to be coddled? This is an argument for whether a government can force a citizen to wear a helmet. I am arguing whether it should. Of course it can, seat belt laws and helmet laws have existed for around 30 years in this country (I am shooting from the hip with that number but you get the point).
Principle is nice, but in the real world all laws are results of much compromise between people who only think in terms of black and white and those who don't. Read Edmund Burke's writings. He was a classical liberal (modern conservative), but also a very pragmatic politician and philosopher who knew when to compromise and on what kinds of issues to compromise. You've been provided the economic and health-care arguments for it, the emotional argument of children growing up without a parent, the public roads argument (if you don't like it, get your own private road), the not-all-regulation-is-bad argument, and you're still not buying it. Why? Because you think it's "unprincipled". In spite of Rimrocker's post which shows multiple examples of inconvenient/'unprincipled' laws which benefit American society, you remain unfazed that the ideologically-partisan country you think used to exist or should exist (free of regulation, govt not encroaching on your life), hasn't been that way for many generations. I respect that there are staunch libertarians like you out there who disagree with it, but at the end of the day, when the majority of influential voters in certain states say helmets are mandatory, that's how it goes because it's sensible and there are more pressing matters to see to. I ride motorcycles myself, and helmets are often a burden, but when reading about the well-put reasons for having the law, I agree with it. I wish quality education could be provided so people could decide whether to gamble their own lives or people sign waivers saying they wouldn't receive any aid or health-care if they didn't wear a helmet (the only thing govt would have to do on this issue), but that world doesn't exist, and so we need laws like this one. Circumstances give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing color and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind. - Edmund Burke
What private market do you think is being regulated by making citizens wear a helmet when they ride a motorcycle? I haven't seen one person argue against market regulation in this thread.
Maybe not, but the seat belt laws are really to protect those that would incur costs because of your irresponsibility.
You have no idea because you are being oblivious to that such actions have implications beyond yourself. Those implications have been stated a few times already in this thread. As far as principles you and others seem to like to throw that term around quite yet rarely consider the application of those principles. If we are going to talk principles perhaps you have heard of the Hipocratic Oath? That is an oath that enshrines the principle of doctors to do no harm. What that means in practical application is that doctors have to render medical aid in an emergencies and this principle is enshrined in law. That means that the principle you stand up for of letting people do moronic things that harm themselves has a direct cost to the rest of society as principled doctors have to try to save those people and while we as a society agree to pay for it. Now we could have a society where we just let people die because of their own stupidity but many would consider that an abandonment of the principles of the medical community and humane society. So given those you have to decide what principles are more important? The logical course is to try to balance them with a reasonable regulation that still preserves the right of people to engage in a risky activity, motorcycle riding, with a reasonable regulation of wearing helmet. Why do you ignore the fact that people's actions have effects beyond themselves? I am just showing that there is a perfectly good legal basis for these laws but also the difference between "rights" and "privileges" is critical to any discussion of personal liberties.
I and everyone else understands the purpose of the law; to lower insurance costs and in general save the taxpayers money on healthcare. This is not a justification to take away individuals choices. A government should only take away individual's choices to protect individual's rights.
If I bought an apple at the grocery store it would have an impact on others. If I didn't buy an apple at the grocery store it would have an impact on others. Because this choice impacts others it should be decided by government?
What negative results come from wearing a helmet? if the government deems wearing a helmet has positive impacts on others and not wearing a helmet has negative impacts on others then they are justified in making the choice for the individual. Is that not your thinking? Does it not apply the same to buying an apple? If the government deems buying an apple has positive impacts on others and not buying an apple has negative impacts on others then they are justified in making the choice for me. The logic is the same.
