You just rang the "way too simple to be valid" bell.
Well, I framed it as an "idle thought," didn't I? <g>
Nonetheless, I'll address your point.
acting on proven evidence that you are much less likely to end up a drain on the public health budget if you don't drive your skull through a windshield one day.
You are making an invalid assumption. I am more at risk from seatbelts than I am from terrorists. My seatbelt, used in accordance with inept government regulations and car manufacturer legal departments, will almost surely kill me in an accident. Terrorists, not so much.
While I would prefer that the feds not snoop in my phone and business records, I would much prefer that to them dooming me to death. Snooping vs death...hmmmm, you pick.
Your assumption that there is no cost to me, as opposed to society at large, from nannyism is invalid. Of course if I did in the accident, that certainly obviates any cost to society. Please pardon me if I care more about living through the accident.
You are very distrustful of the snoopers but assume that the the nannies know best. I don't much like paternalism from either of them. And I know for a fact that they don't always know best.
EDIT: (For the record, my new Honda manual says you shouldn't ride with a seatbelt across your throat. Unfortunately, the Honda manual doesn't offer adequate ways to avoid that other than not riding in their cars.) |
