Thursday’s Eckblad seat belt decision in Washington State must have disappointed a lot of libertarians.
(see, e.g., Georgia Libertarian Party, “Stick It” to “Click It or Ticket”, June 7, 2001; and LPMass’ “danger”
Press Release). The Eckblad court rejected “unconstitutional vagueness” charges and upheld the
State’s seatbelt law in this multi-faceted criminal case.
As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted, Justice Sanders’ acidly dissented:
“The government has determined our citizens are not intelligent enough to decide
for themselves whether to wear a seat belt, yet they apparently have enough intelligence
to locate and interpret an elusive federal administrative rule.”
Meanwhile, because “the Internet teems with information both accurate and inaccurate which can
and does mislead users,” two concurring justices declined “to adjust the vagueness analysis to take
the Internet into account.” (via Paper Chase)
f/k/a has been googling its little yabut off trying to find seat-belt haiku that might ease
the pain of our libertarian brethren. Sadly, there isn’t much of it around on the Net, and it is of uneven
quality. Here are our annotated results.
seatbelt laws —
wrinkles in the fabric
of freedom
[we know, it’s not-quite-haiku]
Valentine’s Day
she reminds me
to fasten my seatbelt
[posted here before; I like it]
a haiku ..
about a seat belt?
Hey! Look . . . an eclipse!
from Silent Running
[weblog by a ranting neo-con; PG14]
to leave Ohio
buckling up
the seat belt
[it’s worth it to get out of a swing state!]
Drank my Budweiser
Got into my pickup truck
Mesh ain’t no seatbelt
Aram “Aggro P” Peterson/ Meshcap Haiku
[a whole page of haiku homage to the Mesh Cap]
I guess there were no seat-belts in 19th Century Japan; but I couldn’t leave Kobayashi Issa out:
the big cat sleeps
in the same seat…
with the doll
world of Buddha’s law–
the snake strips
his clothes
Issa, translated by Prof. David G. Lanoue
by dagosan:
she eyes his wrinkled shirt —
seatbelt saves
another life
[Oct. 16, 2004]
[Prof. Yabut has been using this excuse for decades]
Maybe Prof. Grace (negative externality expert) can help us here: As long as public or private health insurance covers the driver or passenger, don’t auto injuries that seat-belts could prevent raise taxes and premiums for all of us?
Confession: Almost 30 years ago, your Editor ruined a budding romance with a professional masseuse, by insisting she fasten her seat-belt before we left on a date. Despite what this t-shirt might suggest, she was certainly a libertarian hippie.
Faith the Nation: Sorry, but Steve Bainbridge seems to turn off his reason and common sense when discussing politics and religion. Bruce Bartlett correctly says a leader has to look at facts, not just declare that Faith somehow has the answer to all policies and tactics. Also, does Ireland have higher crime rates than our “exceptional” Nation?- LawMeme notes that the AMA now backs Medicare bargaining on prescription drug prices (NYT article). It seems natural that physicians would want to assure there are more Medicare dollars available for non-drug (e.g., doctor) services.
- 9 PM Update: Inspired by a great post by Scheherazade Fowler, there is a very interesting discussion at Stay of Execution today, on what “thinking like a lawyer” means and whether it necessarily precludes other values.
In re: Seat belts. If a person is an above average risk and the insurance (private or public) company can not discern that he is an above average risk (because he drives without a seatbelt), then a law which fines the offending behavior is efficient and should be consistent with libertarian thinking. In this case the driver’s behavior actually injures the property rights of another through higher insurance premiums and/or taxes. The seatbelt law is an attempt to internalize the cost of this risky behavior. If however, insurers can tell that a person routinely drives without a seatbelt and charges an appropriate risk premium for that behavior, then the need for the law is eliminated. In this case the insurer charges the risk premium directly which will internalize the cost of risk to the driver.
In real life we can not monitor drivers costlessly and it is likely cheaper to use the states’ enforcement power to monitor drivers’ behavior.
Comment by Martin — October 18, 2004 @ 11:56 am
In re: Seat belts. If a person is an above average risk and the insurance (private or public) company can not discern that he is an above average risk (because he drives without a seatbelt), then a law which fines the offending behavior is efficient and should be consistent with libertarian thinking. In this case the driver’s behavior actually injures the property rights of another through higher insurance premiums and/or taxes. The seatbelt law is an attempt to internalize the cost of this risky behavior. If however, insurers can tell that a person routinely drives without a seatbelt and charges an appropriate risk premium for that behavior, then the need for the law is eliminated. In this case the insurer charges the risk premium directly which will internalize the cost of risk to the driver.
In real life we can not monitor drivers costlessly and it is likely cheaper to use the states’ enforcement power to monitor drivers’ behavior.
Comment by Martin — October 18, 2004 @ 11:56 am
Ain’t the weblog community great? Obliging experts are (usually) just a few hours away.
Thank you, Martin, for a quick explanation that even I can understand. I assume that the laws mandating seatbelt use are useful for their deterrent effect far more than for the dollars collected in fines — especially since the requirement gives nudges and nanny-types a little leverage with the recalcitrant.
thanks again. your fee is in the mail
Comment by David Giacalone — October 18, 2004 @ 1:27 pm
Ain’t the weblog community great? Obliging experts are (usually) just a few hours away.
Thank you, Martin, for a quick explanation that even I can understand. I assume that the laws mandating seatbelt use are useful for their deterrent effect far more than for the dollars collected in fines — especially since the requirement gives nudges and nanny-types a little leverage with the recalcitrant.
thanks again. your fee is in the mail
Comment by David Giacalone — October 18, 2004 @ 1:27 pm
Good blog with interesing information!
Comment by Benny — September 2, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
Good blog with interesing information!
Comment by Benny — September 2, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
I just don’t get the rant about seat belts from Martin above.
(pearfrazin) (((Everyone deserves a ticket that doesn’t wear a seat belt because your insurance is higher??? ))))WTFriggin heck is that.
IF THAT IS THE CASE
Accoarding to the CDC: Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) continue to be a major health threat in the United States. CDC estimates that 19 million STD infections occur annually, almost half of them among youth ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to potentially severe health consequences, STDs pose a tremendous economic burden, with direct medical costs as high as $15.5 billion in a single year http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats03/trends2003.htm
(don’t think nonseatbelt deaths can compete)
SHOULD THE GOVERMENT FINE YOU FOR HAVING A STD WHEN IT IS DISCOVERED??? … EXCUSE ME SIR HERE YOUR TICKET FOR BEING TOO STUPID TO WEAR A CONDOM!!!! Hey the HWY patrols could come by the hospitals…they are already wasting time with those evil seatbelt violators!!!
SEX POLICE ANYONE.
got to love the new socialist states of AMERICA
Seat belt laws should be a choice if you are an adult. IF YOU DON’T like that comment then how could you say. A WOMEN has a right to choose what to do with her body!!! I choose to be without a seat belt in an accident!!!!! BUT HOW DARE I expect that to be a right. (why… its not popular)
Comment by Christian — June 5, 2007 @ 12:29 am