Ben Roethlisberger and freedom

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If you don't know who Ben Roethlisberger is, or what happened to him, read about it here. I don't feel like retelling the whole story.

But, I heard an interesting discussion about his accident on some talk radio show yesterday. I guess Pennsylvania just recently lightened their helmet laws for motorcycles. Big Ben had been lectured about riding without a helmet by his coach, and had been advised by others to wait until he at least retires.

I don't want to debate his actions. He was an idiot, and it almost cost him his life. I haven't read any further reports, but it may jeaopardize his career. That goes without saying.

But how far should the government go in telling us what is good for us? maybe somebody else can make a better argument, but it seems to me that helmet laws are only intended to protect the citizen on the bike. Is that the government's job? Is it Constitutional?

What about seat belt laws? Where does our freedom to do stupid shit end, and the government's job begin???

[Emu]

I personally think it is the government's job to persecute people in cases like this, but then again I'm a dirty baby-eating socialist (according to an online test I took.)

Cynical as it sounds, people are, by and large, dumbfucks. A good 60% of the population (and that's a pretty conservative estimate) really does need to be told not to put themselves in situations where they can be injured -- like cars with no seatbelts or motorcycles with no helmets.

[ScruU2wice]

I think that Seat belt laws are justified because in an accident an unbelted person is like 100-200 Ilb piece of debris flying around the cabin of the car. That's for the welfare of everyone in the car.

I think that the point Kevin is making is when will a government become too stiff. Wearing a helmet is mild, but what happens when the govenment says that riding motorcycles all together is too dangerous?

Personally I think I fall in Emu's 60% dumbfuck population because I don't know about anything, and need some government regulation to help steer my life.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I was just curious to see what other folks thought about nany-like laws.

I agree with seatbelt laws, but that's because they can have a bearing on the lives of others in the same car.

But helmet laws? This may sound crass, but is there anything wrong with what happened to Ben yesterday? It's unfortuante, and sad, and I hope he recovers, but should the government prevent someone from potentially harming themselves?

What about sky diving? Eating fatty foods? Smoking???

[Emu]

You could make the same case for hard drug laws. Should we allow people to potentially kill themselves by snorting cocaine? You could make the case that people under the influence can cause harm to others by operating vehicles or firearms while intoxicated, I suppose. But the same thing could be said of helmet laws -- people who drive without helmets put themselves at risk of severe medical care, hurting themselves physically and very probably their family financially.

[Big Papa Goat]

Of course there's something wrong about what happened, a guy broke his face. I mean, it's bad when someones face is broken. It basically shouldn't happen, and just because it was his own fault doesn't make a difference in that regard. From my perspective, it would seem that someone broke someones face, it just happens that the second 'somoene' is the same as the first. Pretty much just as bad as someone breaking someone elses face, because in both situations, you've got someone breaking a face, and someone with a broken face.
From a liberal perspective, if individual liberty is the only thing that counts, then I guess there's no justification for helmet laws, but that's only if individual liberty is the only thing that counts. If public safety counts for anything on its own, then something like a helmet law is a reasonable measure. Practically speaking it's not a significant reduction of freedom, and if your talking about public safety as being important, then there's no compelling reason to protect people from their own decisions any less than from anyone elses decisions.

I guess paternal laws like that have to stop when they become unreasonable, which sounds like a bit of a cop out, but basically if you have an understanding of how important freedom is and how important public safety is, you should be able to figure this sort of thing out. Like with the helmet law, it's reasonable because going out and buying a helmet is a pretty small thing to have to do, helmets aren't that expensive, and you can basically do all the things you would otherwise do when you're wearing a helmet. And helmets are really good for safety, they help a lot. So given a situation where the benefit to safety so much outweighs the costs to freedom, then you can basically say that unless safety has extremly limited importance compared to freedom, then it's a reasonable law. Banning fatty foods is unreasonable, because factually speaking, eating a hamburger is not an immediate and obvious risk, and it's a pretty big limit to peoples' freedom to tell them they can never eat this or that.
I know this all sounds simplistic and kind of dumb, but my big point is that with questions like this it's all a matter of having an understanding of the importance of the values in question, and then just having an understanding of the significance of the particular issues to the values in question, and then basically weighing them out. Saying that as a general principle 'the government should never do such a thing as this' is a pretty simple way to look at politics. Limiting the governments activity to the promotion of freedom as a principle isn't practically going to limit much, it's just going to expand the rhetorical meaning of freedom. The only practical limit will be on things that can't be rhetorically argued for, like helmet laws that are clearly issues where freedom is opposed to some other value.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Of course there's something wrong about what happened, a guy broke his face. I mean, it's bad when someones face is broken. It basically shouldn't happen, and just because it was his own fault doesn't make a difference in that regard.

It isn't always bad when someone's face is broken. Sometimes it happens to bad people, and other times we cheer for it in sport.

Like I said, what happened to him is unfortunate and bad....for him. But he also knew full well the consequences of riding without a helmet, he had been warned numerous times by numerous people about it, and he also has a lot of money to rebuild his face and get the best medical and cosmetic care available. In fact, acording to the local Pittsburgh press (who have ben harping over this for weeks now):

"When Cowher learned at minicamp that his starting quarterback was riding around town on a motorcycle, he had a talk with him. It was as much a father-son talk as it was a coach-quarterback talk.

It was a talk about choices and responsibilities and consequences. It made perfect sense.

Roethlisberger walked away from the meeting and so much as thumbed his nose at the coach. He listened to what appeared to be sound advice and said he would not only continue riding but he would continue riding without a helmet."

LINK

He and fellow Steeler Tommy Maddox were actually both infamous for riding around without helmets. According to Maddox:

"You have to look at life, obviously you have to be smart, and I try to be smart because I have a wife and two kids, not because I'm playing a game. I want to be there for my kids growing up and my wife. You do understand there's consequences to your actions, not only on motorcycles, but that's how you live your life."

LINK

So, where's the harm? He knew the risks, he had been warned, andhe did it anyway. Why isn't he entitled to do that?

And doesn't "public safety" refer to the overall public, meaning how the actions and behavior of some can and/or will effect other people?

Practically speaking it's not a significant reduction of freedom, and if your talking about public safety as being important, then there's no compelling reason to protect people from their own decisions any less than from anyone elses decisions.

Is just a little bit less free speech ok? Just because a law is merely annoying doesn't make it necessary or just. I don't mind paying my taxes, that doesn't mean i should pay as much as I do.

Ben could've hurt someone else regardless of whether or not he was wearing a helmet. That's why I think speeding laws, seatbelt laws, drinking and driving laws, and cell phone laws make sense. They can directly harm other people due to the negligence of one other person.

But why does the government have a say in what Ben does just to himself? Is it the government's constitutional obligation to protect us from outside threats, and from ourselves?

Like with the helmet law, it's reasonable because going out and buying a helmet is a pretty small thing to have to do, helmets aren't that expensive, and you can basically do all the things you would otherwise do when you're wearing a helmet. And helmets are really good for safety, they help a lot. So given a situation where the benefit to safety so much outweighs the costs to freedom, then you can basically say that unless safety has extremly limited importance compared to freedom, then it's a reasonable law.

It's also within one's power to eat healthy, not smoke, not drink, and basically do a lot of things that are better for you. That doesn't mean the government should be in the business of telling us to do it.

Ben could buy 1,000 really nice helmets. He knew riding with one would be safer than without. He decided not to anyway. What's so wrong with that? Like his teammate said, life is about choices and consequencs.

Helmets ARE really good for safety, just like wearing a condom is really a good way to prevent spreading STDs. Condoms are pretty cheap, right? Should it be a law to wear a condom when you have sex? Following your argument, I think it must be.

I don't necessarily want this to be exclusively about cars and helmets. I guess my overall question is where does th reach of governmen end regarding my own behavior?

[Royal Tenenbaum]

My personal take is that people should have the freedom to choose between wearing a helmet or not. But, once they've made that choice, if they choose not to wear a helment and then get caught with out one then they should have to pay higher insurance premiums as they are a danger. That way you have the freedom, but you also have an incentive not to do it. Either way, if people want to be dumb and unnecessarily risk their lives so be it.

[Juttin]

Our government is slowly-but-quickly turning into a socialist one, so I wouldn't be surprised if they actually DID something like ban
something because one person got hurt being an idiot.

[AChimp]

I think it's too bad he wasn't riding shirtless and in shorts so he needed a few years' worth of skin grafts, too. What a dumb fucker.

[Juttin]

Actually, I think some people would do that.

A law where you have to be fully clothed to get on a bike would be where I draw the line with constricions...it should be a choice to wear a helmet or not.

[AChimp]

Originally Posted by juttin

Actually, I think some people would do that.

A law where you have to be fully clothed to get on a bike would be where I draw the line with constricions...it should be a choice to wear a helmet or not.

Yeah, but you see, that makes you retarded. By the logic going on in this thread, I should be able to ride a motorcycle half-naked because it's not affecting anyone else, right? How is your helmet any different from your shirt?

Is the road your own private property, or does it belong to the government? Last time I checked, the roads were public property, which means that the government gets jurisdiction.

Rebuilding Ben's face is a waste of resources. That hospital bed would be better off going to a cancer patient or some other sick person, rather than someone who was stupid. A helmet would have prevented most of those injuries. Look at how many people Ben's choice is affecting... the doctors and nurses, police and emergency crews, his football team, his family, the family of the woman who hit him... IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT JUST AFFECTING HIM.

It's made a lot of work for everyone around him. He hasn't done this just to himself.

How do you think the old woman would feel if she had killed him instead of just turning him into the Elephant Man? Helmets reduce the risk of your death so the people who were involved in the accident with you don't also have to deal with your death on their conscience.

All I see in this thread is people whining about their rights, and not giving a shit about the responsibilities that go along with them.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by AChimp

By the logic going on in this thread, I should be able to ride a motorcycle half-naked because it's not affecting anyone else, right? How is your helmet any different from your shirt?

There's a difference between public decency and public safety, chimpy.

You wear a shirt while riding because you wear a shirt in most public places. You don't need to cover your face in public, so you don't need to cover it while riding. The impetus behind helmet laws wasn't cosmetic, it was geared towards public safety. There's a difference.

Is the road your own private property, or does it belong to the government? Last time I checked, the roads were public property, which means that the government gets jurisdiction.

Well, for starters, not all roads are public places.

Secondly, the government doesn't have absolute jurisdiction over public space. You can petition in public space, speak freely, dress as you like, smoke, etc.

Rebuilding Ben's face is a waste of resources. That hospital bed would be better off going to a cancer patient or some other sick person, rather than someone who was stupid. A helmet would have prevented most of those injuries. Look at how many people Ben's choice is affecting... the doctors and nurses, police and emergency crews, his football team, his family, the family of the woman who hit him... IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT JUST AFFECTING HIM.

What happens to his football team is irrelevant, and isn't the government's business. Nor is the somber mood of his family. The woman who hit him? Huh? Should the government be concerned with every bad mood that results from an accident? I'm sure their respective insurance agencies will worry about that.

The hospital bed, doctor, nurse argument makes a little bit more sense, which is sort of where I wanted this conversation to go. I think excessive laws that dictate behavior would be necessary in a nation with a single-payer healthcare system. If the state is paying for your face surgery, than the government should be free to tell you to wear a helmet, right?

Ben can pay for those hospital services, he won't need the government to cover his tab. If he had walked in their with any other ailment, it STILL would've used up hospital resources. What if he drank too much and got liver disease? He'd STILL be screwing the cancer patient, who presumably didn't ask for cancer. Does this mean the government should dictate alcohol consumption???

How do you think the old woman would feel if she had killed him instead of just turning him into the Elephant Man? Helmets reduce the risk of your death so the people who were involved in the accident with you don't also have to deal with your death on their conscience.

I dunno, maybe she would've said "he should've been wearing a helmet?" Do people who commit vehicular manslaughter feel better if the people they killed had seatbelts on???

All I see in this thread is people whining about their rights, and not giving a shit about the responsibilities that go along with them.

Speaking of whiners, all I see is someone with a bunch of holes in their whiney argument.

The responsibilty began with Ben. THAT'S where the responsibility rests. Why is the state responsible for his poor decisions?

Helmets do save lives. And they should be used. But I don't think you've proven that it's the government's business to be involved in the lives of those who've been effected. Ben was the one who showed disregard for his loved ones, the hospital workers (which is a rather weak argument anyway), and Ben was the one who put his life in his hands when that woman hit him.

[Emu]

I think personal safety issues are one of those things where we'll just have to pick and choose.

Like someone said above, not wearing a seatbelt when there are other passengers in the car should be a prosecutable offense becuase a large, 200 pound object flying around in a small space constitutes a severe risk to others -- but that begs this question: When you're riding alone, should you have to wear your seatbelt? If you get in a front end collision you could fly through the windshield and hit someone, but the same could be said of an even greater extent to motorcycles, and they don't even have seatbelts.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

But how far should the government go in telling us what is good for us? maybe somebody else can make a better argument, but it seems to me that helmet laws are only intended to protect the citizen on the bike. Is that the government's job? Is it Constitutional?

What about seat belt laws? Where does our freedom to do stupid shit end, and the government's job begin???

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

...maybe somebody else can make a better argument...

Maybe someone can.

Originally Posted by Emu

Cynical as it sounds, people are, by and large...

Yes, we know... dumbfucks.

At some point we are all revealed many times over to be dumbfucks, at least in some field with which we aren't yet that familiar. Life is a learning process, with a curve so steep you cannot finish it in a single lifetime, no matter who you are. Your estimate is indeed conservative, IMO... maybe something more like 100% of us are, have been and in either case, will be (again or not) dumbfucks.

Since you are currently being a dumbfuck... no offense... we all do it... I would like to point out that throughout American history mistakes of almost any kind nearly always result in some sort of positive net outcome.

Argueably the most mistake riddled period of our history so far, the Civil War (and I'm a Southerner so I know what I'm talking about here,) resulted in our dominance of the English economy, the strongest in the world at that time. More American soldiers died in your average month back then as will ever die in Iraq. Hell of a mistake, but what followed should be listed as one of the world's great wonders.

We boomed.

Originally Posted by ScruU2wice

Personally I think I fall in Emu's 60% dumbfuck population because I don't know about anything, and need some government regulation to help steer my life.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.[/retard]

Get real. Life is actually too hard for you to accomplish succesfully? Well, actually since you brought this up in a safety discussion, you must really mean that you lack the confidence that you'll avoid premature death due to your own dumbfuckedness and asininnity, right?

Personally, I doubt your statement. You strike me as better put together than that.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

What about sky diving? Eating fatty foods? Smoking???

What about the stock market? (Managed privately for the coolest parts of history, the original "checks and balances" placed in the way of corporate corruption were installed under private stewardship of the markets. In fact, the greatest periods of unrest in the last several eras have followed the times at which technology... the product of business... has outpaced the management efforts of the government... through corporate regulatory laws...) Think Enron, Napster and anti-spam.

Government just doesn't do things, in general, well. There's a rich historical record that proves that conclusively.

If you are truly concerned for your safety, why would you select the most inefficient means possible to assure it for you?

Roethlisberger may yet prove to be a spokesman for helmet laws, you never know... but regardless, his fame has assured that many kids across the world have heard of his poor judgement. Something that has happened and then been disseminated throughout the world for free seems to have served as a pretty cost-effective PSA: much better, one might say, than any tax-funded government campaign version of the same thing.

Many more people die each year due to most rural county governments standard policy on installing new stop-lights (basically, a certain threshold of deaths due to the lack of a light needs to be crossed) than do those due to sky-diving accidents. The commercial industry is strictly, and privately, regulated. There is government oversight, but it is no where near responsible for the safety of the sport.

Skydiving is, however, regulated by the government, just like "Eating fatty foods and Smoking." In all three of your examples, government has shown to be powerless to improve the existant conditions without the help of the business world. McDonald's hasn't improved it's menu because some politicians made them... they responded to the market. Same reason anti-public-smoking ordinances are being passed in most communities: Bars, restaurants and other businesses aren't legally resisting the "will of the people."

Originally Posted by Emu

But the same thing could be said of helmet laws -- people who drive without helmets put themselves at risk of severe medical care, hurting themselves physically and very probably their family financially....

Thanks for bringing up ilicit freedoms. I am, if you already didn't know, a libertarian. I love drug law discussions, and that sort of freedom is the only reason I'm interested in this sort of discussion at all: that at freedom's fringes. The best modern version of this extreme discussion is that regarding drug laws. We are, as you likely know already, against them.

Personally, at least I am also very strongly in favor of government oversight in this area, just not government management of it. Set up access laws based in age and licensing requirements, then actively and severely punish any retailer that cheats. Sell to a minor or someone not properly licensed and you are out of business forever. Let the market work the rest out.

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

I know this all sounds simplistic and kind of dumb...

Nope.

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

...But my big point is that with questions like this it's all a matter of having an understanding of the importance of the values in question, and then just having an understanding of the significance of the particular issues to the values in question, and then basically weighing them out.

"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty."
-- John Adams

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Saying that as a general principle 'the government should never do such a thing as this' is a pretty simple way to look at politics. Limiting the governments activity to the promotion of freedom as a principle isn't practically going to limit much, it's just going to expand the rhetorical meaning of freedom. The only practical limit will be on things that can't be rhetorically argued for, like helmet laws that are clearly issues where freedom is opposed to some other value.

Government is not the only, much less not the most-effective, means with we which we govern our society.

"Let the market work the rest out."
--Me

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Is just a little bit less free speech ok? Just because a law is merely annoying doesn't make it necessary or just. I don't mind paying my taxes, that doesn't mean i should pay as much as I do.

Welcome, once again, to the Dark-Side©, young one.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I guess my overall question is where does th reach of governmen end regarding my own behavior?

Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

Originally Posted by Forrest Gump

...and that's all I have say about that.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Pith

...whatever.

[ScruU2wice]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.[/retard]

Get real. Life is actually too hard for you to accomplish succesfully? Well, actually since you brought this up in a safety discussion, you must really mean that you lack the confidence that you'll avoid premature death due to your own dumbfuckedness and asininnity, right?

Personally, I doubt your statement. You strike me as better put together than that.

Well when I was typing that I was thinking in the realm of somethings like FDA. I know people that would go nuts with ephedra if the governmentdidn't tell them that it'll destroy their hearts. I know I really wouldn't know better. In that sense the government is protecting me from pre-mature death.

same with resturaunts, I know that sometimes the sole motivation to follow health code is constant fear of the violation. They don't care about whether the aluminum shelving in the coolers are less conducive to bacteria with coating.

I don't lack faith in my survival ability, I just think that it affects quality of life. Again this is narrowed down to things that affect the public, and stuff that affects health. I think it should just go as far as to make life a little more pleasant.