A large part of the problem is that we allow multitudes of parasitic 'charities' to leech off government funding (i.e. my and your taxes). If they succeed in achieving their stated aim, does anyone think they will say: "Thank heavens, now we can go and spend our time doing something useful and productive for society as a whole"? Or will they rather say: "How best can we keep the grift going?"
What a splendid, and prescient, speech in the Commons by Ivan Lawrence. Is there any MP today who would say as much?
I too take a consistent and hardline position on this stuff and therefore reject the compulsory wearing of seat belts (although I voluntarily choose to wear one) and crash helmets. If you have principles, then a consistent application of them matters!
Thanks for the post, I was made aware by the YouTube channel Po's Law about some research called 'Car seats as contraception' which estimates that in 2017 child car seat safety laws in the US saved 54 children's lives but also prevented 8,000 births.
Is there any hope for reform? The only way out I can see is a future economic crisis forcing the government to abandon all funding of nanny state nonsense.
Hmm. You make some good points, Chris, and ones that should not be limited in appeal to anarch...er, banner libertarians. I would not have thought I could be caused to doubt that seatbelt laws are a good idea, but you got me thinking. Not saying I have done a 180 there (see below), but thinking.
You might consider couching the argument, to some extent, in language of "the theory of the second best" and the political philosophy of not granting power that will turn out badly if the next generation has bad people in particular roles. The latter note advises against concentrating too much power in too few people, because we cannot count on future fillers of those seats to be rational. James Madison and all. But also suggests such things as "do not acquire a huge standing army and stockpile of weapons, even if they might be genuinely useful for defending your allies, because some idiot will come along and say 'ooh, look, fun toys, lets see what I can do with them'."
The theory of the second best is, as you know, primarily about technical economic regulatory policies and such. But you apply it (without using the term) to lifestyle regulation adroitly. But it does seem to call for a bit more delving into what constitutes a serious risk of a slippery slope. There are some clickbait trolls out there (dating back to before the word "clickbait") who make claims like we should not have food facility regulations and inspections or bans on snake oil medicines because everyone should just be allowed to choose. I don't recall seeing any serious analysts of the issues, like yourself, arguing that food safety regulations are a slippery slope toward banning "junk food", even though they are in the same material realm. This suggests a recognition that some limitations that are done for people's own good are either recognized to not create the slope or are seen as worth the risk.
We were always able predict that indoor smoking ban advocates would use their success as a jumping off point for further restrictions, not because of general principles that all slopes are slippery, but because: (a) The same people were already flat-out saying they wanted maximum possible restrictions at the time they were fighting for the first step (not very good at message discipline, those people). (b) They were already demonstrating they would adopt any disingenuous argument that furthered their pet cause. A similar case can be made that the same people would leverage into other lifestyle restrictions.
That does contrast rather clearly with transport safety advocates. A seatbelt requirement looks a lot more like food safety regulation. Any non-nutter can see why someone might choose to smoke, drink, etc. despite fully understanding the risks. But it is difficult to believe that anyone's benefits from eating possible infectious salsa or not taking a second to move their hand across their lap really represents their enlightened self interests. Moreover, and perhaps most important, the expert advocates working on transport safety -- serious and fairly conservative people -- show no signs of wanting to shut down all transport (in contrast with the goals "public health" puritans). They might gently remind people that driving less is good for their health, but they do not try to restrict that choice. So it is difficult to imagine that them requiring a particular behavioral step (putting on your seatbelt) is any more likely to slippery slope than their mandating safer hardware.
Now I understand that you would argue that it is not about them, it is about the puritans who pick up on what they accomplished and perverting it into an analogy for what they want to do. I do recognize that as a valid and somewhat compelling argument, as I noted. But I am not really convinced there is causation. The puritans will say anything and latch onto any rationalization. If it were not for seatbelts, they would make the same argument by (poor) analogy by invoking prohibitions on snake oil medicines or toxic sushi. Perhaps seatbelt bans do indeed materially further the pursuit of lifestyle restrictions. But I am not sure that is self-evident from the mere fact that they are cited by the puritans.
The issue with crash helmet and seatbelt compulsion is not that they paved the way to further transport related restrictions, but that they conceded for the first time that the State is entitled to interfere in our lives to protect ourselves in our own best interests. To me that is a profoundly objectionable principle and why these laws were very significant.
I think the analogy between seatbelt laws and food safety laws is false. The correct analogy would be between food safety laws and laws that required that functioning seatbelts are installed in all new cars and that a vehicle needs them to pass a MOT, leaving the actual use to the users.
Food safety is irrelevant. If a product, be it food or anything else, is ‘not fit for purpose’ then the seller commits an offence. Obviously. No personal freedom issues here. In the case of food, drink & tobacco, the products may come with some inherent adverse side effects, but provided the seller is not concealing what they are, there is no reason why a user shouldn’t be free to purchase and consume them without hindrance from the State. A cigarette remains fit for purpose notwithstanding its potential carcinogenic properties.
That's what classical liberals want - that no-one should be prosecuted if they don't put the available seat belt on. Seat belt laws are a waste of enforcement resources too.
Btw, what's contaminated salsa got to do with anything? It's not a personal health issue unless you contaminated it yourself.
A large part of the problem is that we allow multitudes of parasitic 'charities' to leech off government funding (i.e. my and your taxes). If they succeed in achieving their stated aim, does anyone think they will say: "Thank heavens, now we can go and spend our time doing something useful and productive for society as a whole"? Or will they rather say: "How best can we keep the grift going?"
True, many of these NGOs truly are PMC career creation schemes for credentialed activists.
What a splendid, and prescient, speech in the Commons by Ivan Lawrence. Is there any MP today who would say as much?
I too take a consistent and hardline position on this stuff and therefore reject the compulsory wearing of seat belts (although I voluntarily choose to wear one) and crash helmets. If you have principles, then a consistent application of them matters!
Thanks for the post, I was made aware by the YouTube channel Po's Law about some research called 'Car seats as contraception' which estimates that in 2017 child car seat safety laws in the US saved 54 children's lives but also prevented 8,000 births.
Is there any hope for reform? The only way out I can see is a future economic crisis forcing the government to abandon all funding of nanny state nonsense.
Hmm. You make some good points, Chris, and ones that should not be limited in appeal to anarch...er, banner libertarians. I would not have thought I could be caused to doubt that seatbelt laws are a good idea, but you got me thinking. Not saying I have done a 180 there (see below), but thinking.
You might consider couching the argument, to some extent, in language of "the theory of the second best" and the political philosophy of not granting power that will turn out badly if the next generation has bad people in particular roles. The latter note advises against concentrating too much power in too few people, because we cannot count on future fillers of those seats to be rational. James Madison and all. But also suggests such things as "do not acquire a huge standing army and stockpile of weapons, even if they might be genuinely useful for defending your allies, because some idiot will come along and say 'ooh, look, fun toys, lets see what I can do with them'."
The theory of the second best is, as you know, primarily about technical economic regulatory policies and such. But you apply it (without using the term) to lifestyle regulation adroitly. But it does seem to call for a bit more delving into what constitutes a serious risk of a slippery slope. There are some clickbait trolls out there (dating back to before the word "clickbait") who make claims like we should not have food facility regulations and inspections or bans on snake oil medicines because everyone should just be allowed to choose. I don't recall seeing any serious analysts of the issues, like yourself, arguing that food safety regulations are a slippery slope toward banning "junk food", even though they are in the same material realm. This suggests a recognition that some limitations that are done for people's own good are either recognized to not create the slope or are seen as worth the risk.
We were always able predict that indoor smoking ban advocates would use their success as a jumping off point for further restrictions, not because of general principles that all slopes are slippery, but because: (a) The same people were already flat-out saying they wanted maximum possible restrictions at the time they were fighting for the first step (not very good at message discipline, those people). (b) They were already demonstrating they would adopt any disingenuous argument that furthered their pet cause. A similar case can be made that the same people would leverage into other lifestyle restrictions.
That does contrast rather clearly with transport safety advocates. A seatbelt requirement looks a lot more like food safety regulation. Any non-nutter can see why someone might choose to smoke, drink, etc. despite fully understanding the risks. But it is difficult to believe that anyone's benefits from eating possible infectious salsa or not taking a second to move their hand across their lap really represents their enlightened self interests. Moreover, and perhaps most important, the expert advocates working on transport safety -- serious and fairly conservative people -- show no signs of wanting to shut down all transport (in contrast with the goals "public health" puritans). They might gently remind people that driving less is good for their health, but they do not try to restrict that choice. So it is difficult to imagine that them requiring a particular behavioral step (putting on your seatbelt) is any more likely to slippery slope than their mandating safer hardware.
Now I understand that you would argue that it is not about them, it is about the puritans who pick up on what they accomplished and perverting it into an analogy for what they want to do. I do recognize that as a valid and somewhat compelling argument, as I noted. But I am not really convinced there is causation. The puritans will say anything and latch onto any rationalization. If it were not for seatbelts, they would make the same argument by (poor) analogy by invoking prohibitions on snake oil medicines or toxic sushi. Perhaps seatbelt bans do indeed materially further the pursuit of lifestyle restrictions. But I am not sure that is self-evident from the mere fact that they are cited by the puritans.
The issue with crash helmet and seatbelt compulsion is not that they paved the way to further transport related restrictions, but that they conceded for the first time that the State is entitled to interfere in our lives to protect ourselves in our own best interests. To me that is a profoundly objectionable principle and why these laws were very significant.
I think the analogy between seatbelt laws and food safety laws is false. The correct analogy would be between food safety laws and laws that required that functioning seatbelts are installed in all new cars and that a vehicle needs them to pass a MOT, leaving the actual use to the users.
Food safety is irrelevant. If a product, be it food or anything else, is ‘not fit for purpose’ then the seller commits an offence. Obviously. No personal freedom issues here. In the case of food, drink & tobacco, the products may come with some inherent adverse side effects, but provided the seller is not concealing what they are, there is no reason why a user shouldn’t be free to purchase and consume them without hindrance from the State. A cigarette remains fit for purpose notwithstanding its potential carcinogenic properties.
Exactly that. Thus analogy with seatbelts applies to sellers/producers of cars, not users.
That's what classical liberals want - that no-one should be prosecuted if they don't put the available seat belt on. Seat belt laws are a waste of enforcement resources too.
Btw, what's contaminated salsa got to do with anything? It's not a personal health issue unless you contaminated it yourself.