Why Does Government Require You to Wear a Seat Belt?

That’s easy.  Because it’s for your own good.  I mean, after all, if you are in a serious collision, traffic studies make clear, you are more likely to avoid injury or death if you are belted.

But what if, for whatever reason, you don’t like to use them and respond “I’ll take my chances!”

And that is a very good point.  Because what, after all, should be the role of government?  Is it to provide an orderly, civilized setting in which a nation’s citizens can live and hopefully prosper?  Or is it to look after you as a nanny does a child?

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution explained that its purpose was “to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility,  provide for the common defense, promote the generale Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

So how did we get from there to mandatory helmets for motorcycle riders, seatbelts for all and health insurance for those who don’t want it?

Because over many decades a view among our political leaders has become increasingly prevalent (aided greatly by the liberal academy): individuals can’t be trusted to make proper decisions for their own welfare.  And when they inevitably make a bad decision, others also pay a price.  Thus forcing people to do the “right” thing is in everyone’s best interest.  So what’s wrong with that?  If one wants to protect individual liberty, everything.

This is not to suggest that society should have no role in dictating the conduct of its members.  Requiring a four year old child to be transported safely in a safety seat should be unobjectionable.  Isn’t a child properly considered to be (usually) deficient in judgment and maturity in comparison with (most) adults? 

But can a nation long remain free if the government plays the role of nanny for adults, too?

Take motorcycle helmets.  I don’t doubt that if a rider falls off and hits the road, his head will fare better if he has one on.  And proponents of requiring that they be worn are undoubtedly right that minimizing head injuries reduces demands on the health care system, and this is an economic plus.  But is reduction of risk the only concern to be considered?  Why permit motorcycle riding at all?  A head encased in plastic, feet in boots and legs and torso in leather clothing is not exactly comparable protection to airbags and surrounding steel.

Of course, there is a broader cost involved when the choice turns out to be a bad one.  For example, if you want to do mountain climbing, you might get stranded atop a snowy peak and require rescue at public expense.  Do we ban mountain climbing because of the risk of public expenditure?  Or do we acknowledge that the exercise of freedom, like not wearing a helmet, involves potential cost?

Freedom for individuals means the right to make choices.    Fundamentally, we have to choose between values. 

To the extent that a reduction in risk is required, so too is liberty restricted.

A risk-free society would be a safe one, but it would hardly be free.