On Thursday 25 Sep 2003 05:10, Tom Young wrote:

> Just an example of how any for
> of Socialism inevitably results in a reduction of personal freedom; for
> the "greater good" personal liberties are curtailed.

Sorry, but i simply don't buy this "personal liberties" argument. Along
with personal liberties and freedoms come personal responsibilities. If
you want the full personal liberty to wear or not wear a safety belt
(Vanagon content, please note) you should have it. Just also accept the
personal responsibily for your medical bill when you have an accident.

The fact is that most people would struggle to foot a bill running into
hundreds of thousands, so they really don't have a choice. The "personal
liberty" argument is void for that reason only. If "Socialism", as you put
it, will foot the bill for you, it's not unreasonable to allow "Socialism"
to set out a few ground rules. I'm sure you wouldn't have any problems
accepting medical treatment that you couldn't pay for yourself, so why do
you have such an issue with the conditions attached?

> As for private
> insurers, the issue should be fairly trivial; victims who aren't wearing
> seatbelts or helmets would receive greatly reduced post-accident
> benefits.  Only......  that's not possible because of the high degree of
> regulation (disguised as "consumer protection") that exists.

No... Just load the insurance premium for those who choose not to wear a
safety belt or crash helmet (respectively). Attach conditions to the
discounted insurance that make the expense recoverable, from you or your
legacy, if you're not wearing your safety gear. Allow those who wish the
freedom to choose, but allow them to pay for their choice as well.
--
Tim
PGP Key ID: 525e6a47
Available from http://pgp.mit.edu