Hipsterism - An observation

[akima]

Originally Posted by spooph

In which case, you're all the more welcome to my box.

Just got back from a short trip away. Disappointed to find box has not arrived

Originally Posted by spooph

Good talk!

Yep!

Originally Posted by ninjamunky85

I choose to wear the gear but I also defend the right to choose to not gear up.

Same here on both counts.

Originally Posted by allanoue

The law makes for less expensive insurance rates. I do not like paying for others stupidity.

Maybe laws mandating gear produce lower insurance rates, but laws rarely only have the desired effect the law-makers intended. Personally I don't support any law created by the state to protect you from yourself. That's what parents are for. When you leave home you should take responsibility for yourself.

Remember that every law is backed by threat of force. Rather than force people you care about to do the sensible thing, why not respectfully and peacefully make your case for doing the sensible thing and then let them make their own mind up.

[spooph]

Originally Posted by akima

Just got back from a short trip away. Disappointed to find box has not arrived

Remember that every law is backed by threat of force. Rather than force people you care about to do the sensible thing, why not respectfully and peacefully make your case for doing the sensible thing and then let them make their own mind up.

Don't blame me, I sent it! Blame the post office...

Love the law backed by force comment!

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by akima

Just

Maybe laws mandating gear produce lower insurance rates, but laws rarely only have the desired effect the law-makers intended. Personally I don't support any law created by the state to protect you from yourself. That's what parents are for. When you leave home you should take responsibility for yourself.

Remember that every law is backed by threat of force. Rather than force people you care about to do the sensible thing, why not respectfully and peacefully make your case for doing the sensible thing and then let them make their own mind up.

If anyone needs to ride without gear, that is there business until it costs me money. Insurance is less in states with helmet laws. Otherwise I am all for people having the right to splatter there brains anyway they like.

[akima]

Originally Posted by allanoue

If anyone needs to ride without gear, that is there business until it costs me money. Insurance is less in states with helmet laws. Otherwise I am all for people having the right to splatter there brains anyway they like.

Many houses don't have metered water here. If people here were to use your reasoning, then they could argue that bathtubs should be banned, so the burden of bath-tub users isn't unfairly distributed among shower-users.

The general problem with that line of reasoning is that it is an argument for effect rather than an argument for a principle. As-in: "these people should do these things so that these specific things will happen." These kinds of arguments for effect are always problematic, because anyone can justify almost any kind of negative behaviour "because it has this obvious great effect!" So essentially: a bad thing (using threat of violence to make someone behave in a certain way) can be justified because it should have this good outcome (lower insurance rates). The word "should" is important there too, as often arguments for effect (when applied to the real and very complex world) have far more effects than originally envisioned. Then more arguments for more effects are needed! In the case of government this usually translates to more and more laws; more control, less freedom and eventually... you have the kind of bloated, non-sustainable, control-freak governments that we live under today (in Europe and the States).

I think arguments for principles are better. My principle here is that you shouldn't violently impose your will on others to protect them from themselves. This principle is easy to follow and very empowering for the individual. It does not require complicated laws. It doesn't require departments of government to declare precisely what "being safe on a motorcycle" is. It doesn't actually require that you do anything. You get to live your life however you choose. My principle just requires that you don't use force against others to make them behave in a way that you want them to.

Force (violence) is a horrible thing so I don't think it should be a go to tool for every little problem we have. I personally think it should be reserved for dealing with people who themselves are trying to use violence against us. IE self defence.

Sorry! Didn't mean to type such a long reply This is just an area of life that I think about quite a lot so I have lots to say.

[ForceofWill]

Not to mention the fact that insurance is a private industry. So even if it were true that states with helmet laws had cheaper insurance you don't get to enact legislation affecting civil liberties to persuade a private company to lower prices.

[choneofakind]

...I wear a helmet