They don't want a law that will force them to protect themselves, they want a law to force someone else to be more protected, against their will.
I think there are others involved who need legislation to advocate on their behalf. The same people who flout seat-belt laws, for example, are the same people who would fail to provide that protection for their children.
That's the only working angle in the debate... protecting the rights of those that are unable to exercise them. (such as mentally ill or children) But this isn't a case of someone that lacks the ability to understand the problem and make a decision. This is someone telling a competent person what they
ought to do. And what that comes down to is, I should be able to do as I damn well please as long as it doesn't violate someone else's rights. (that's pretty much the definition of "Liberty") And
you have no right to keep
me safe. end.
I don't understand why arguments for not wearing seat-belts or helmets are referred to as an infringement of rights when the very act of operating a vehicle on a public roadway is itself not a right. It is a privilege.
That can't be made into a blanket justification. You're confusing the difference between what they
can make a law for, with what they
should make a law for. Since it's a right, they
could require you to wear a helmet while driving your car. But that'd be silly. They
could lower the max highway speed to 20 mph. (and it would be
safer for everyone!) But that too would be silly. Just because they
can doesn't mean they
should.
This is like trying to make skydiving illegal. Leave me alone, I'm not putting anyone else in danger. (unless you're directly below!)
