S/O booster seat -limits of good laws

[MSNative]

Reading the booster seat thread has left me with a few questions that I'm having trouble articulating (cause my kids are stir crazy with the rain.) Hoping this example will convey my questions.

 

Many people die or have lower quality of life because they do not exercise daily. Many children are now obese, have diabetes, low self esteem and poor mobility because of this. Given that some people on medicare/medicaid, all taxpayers have a vested interest in making sure everyone is healthier so healthcare costs are reduced. I propose we make a law requiring everyone exercise 30 minutes daily. This wouldn't be a problem for my family. We already exercise daily and eat fairly well.

 

The above example shares similarities with the booster seat law. Kids will be safer/healthier, many families are already doing it anyway, those families that aren't ought to be.

 

Other than the obvious difficulty in monitoring my proposed law, why would this law be unacceptable (as I assume most of us would believe) while the booster seat law is acceptable? No snark intended and I'm not trying to debate the booster seat law. I guess what I'm trying to ask is what are the limits of "good" laws? When should the legislature get involved and when is it up to the individual to decide?

 

Hope this made some sense. Clearly I'm still trying to roll this around in my brain. I appreciate hearing your insight.

[RoughCollie]

A booster seat law is similar to a seat belt law. First, it saves people from being killed or injured, in many cases. This in turn eases the burden on hospital ER's, medical bills that are paid by the state, and on emergency services. There is a direct line between savings for goverments and the medical emergency response systems and using a seat belt or a booster seat.

 

Also, these laws are easier for the police to check compliance. In some states, I think they can pull people over if they see through the windows that someone is not wearing a seatbelt and a child is not restrained in a vehicle, especially in the front seats.

 

In other states, the police have another reason, like a traffic stop, to hand out tickets for noncompliance with the law.

 

There is no way to make sure everyone is complying with a law that requires people to eat certain foods or to exercise. Not only that, but every health problem is not caused by poor diets and lack of exercise ... and there is no way to tell which percentage of a health problem is caused by behavior that is within a person's control, education, and foresight. Thin people get diabetes. People who have never smoked get lung cancer.

 

On the subject of food (my favorite soapbox but I'll be brief), it really is true that in many, if not most, areas of the U.S., healthy foods cost more than unhealthy ones. That is why the DOA's food plans for various income levels contain soda at the lowest level, and no whole grains -- both are cheaper than milk and nutritious bread. I can feed my family much less expensively from the dollar menu at fast food places, and by buying processed foods on sale, and by rarely buying produce or milk, butter, and cheese. Sure, they'll have to eat a lot of ingredients derived from corn, and who do we have to thank for that? The federal government, IMO. Our food supply is the result of several systems that were set up to benefit someone besides the general population and to make our food supply much cheaper than it would otherwise be.

 

My dear husband bought some bargain ground beef yesterday. It was only $1.88 per pound! Oh, happy day! /sarc Except he did not read the nutrition label (could not see well enough), so he did not know it was 30% fat - and it certainly was not otherwise marked on the package. There was so much fat in it that it was pink instead of red, but he didn't notice that either. DS made hamburgers last night that fell apart, no matter how hard the meat was packed before it was flattened. He used one pound of beef, and I poured nearly 12 oz. of fat out of the pan. Plus, the fat splattered so much (before I got in there and poured it out) that my stove was covered in grease, and so was a clean muffin tin sitting 2' away -- the cups had solidified grease in them when I went to put it away. So maybe 30% is wrong, and it is 40% fat. I am planning to boil it and rinse it in hot water so I can use it for dog food and spaghetti sauce.

 

A well-educated, savvy friend called me today. She was all excited because she realized if she cooks everything from scratch and stop eating junk and processed foods, she and her husband can save a lot of money on groceries. Since the food supply is one of my favorite subjects and I have waxed eloquent to her many times over the years, I was shocked to hear this.

 

I know plenty of poor people who eat awful diets routinely, many because they are not interested in doing that and because they need to fill up their families for a lot less money than my family spends per person. Boy was I surprised that it wasn't routine by now for people who know about nutrition and can afford to buy basic healthy food (not grass-fed or organic) to stay away from Dinky Moore beef stew, control their portion sizes, eschew junk, and cook at home instead of reheating processed foods.

Edited January 21, 2012 by RoughCollie

[jewellsmommy]

Well, you also have the problem of who decides what constitutes exercise. Is bowling exercise? It is physical but not excercise in my book. Some families think it is though. What about Wii games that use the board like outdoor challenge? Does that count? I think you would have a hard time getting a consensus and then there is proof that everyone is in compliance.

[eternalknot]

You can't legislate common, good, decent sense.

 

Heck, people can't even agree on what's common, good, decent sense!

 

I think it's admirable, but silly, to try to save people from themselves.

[MeaganS]

I think part of it is because the government controls the roads and what is allowed on them. Roads are built by the government and have always had stricter laws that other places. I can't imagine anyone being ok with a speed limit for walking, but no one bats an eye at regular speed limits, for example.

 

For me, this puts seat-belt and other traffic laws in the realm of perfectly acceptable. YMMV.

[RoughCollie]

I think part of it is because the government controls the roads and what is allowed on them.

 

That's a very good point.

[SKL]

I think part of it is because the government controls the roads and what is allowed on them. Roads are built by the government and have always had stricter laws that other places. I can't imagine anyone being ok with a speed limit for walking, but no one bats an eye at regular speed limits, for example.

 

For me, this puts seat-belt and other traffic laws in the realm of perfectly acceptable. YMMV.

 

I thought the US government and state governments were "of the people, by the people, for the people." Those roads are MY roads. My taxes paid for them. Just because they are collectively owned doesn't mean I have no rights when I'm on them.

 

And just because a law is easy to enforce doesn't make it more OK. Remember when they had laws against painting houses any color other than white?

[cdrumm4448]

I think it's admirable, but silly, to try to save people from themselves.

 

Personally, I think it's a mistake to try to "save people from themselves". People will fail. They must be allowed to. Trying to avoid that truth of life is part of the reason we're in this mess in the US in the first place. So, I disagree that it's admirable. I think it's offensive to assume people are too stupid to take care of themselves.

[MeaganS]

I thought the US government and state governments were "of the people, by the people, for the people." Those roads are MY roads. My taxes paid for them. Just because they are collectively owned doesn't mean I have no rights when I'm on them.

 

And just because a law is easy to enforce doesn't make it more OK. Remember when they had laws against painting houses any color other than white?

 

I agree. But by that same logic, the laws made that govern the road were made by the people and for the people. Laws are necessary because without them there would be chaos. Without laws, the roads would be even more unsafe than they are now.

 

The problem is, laws always take away our freedoms. That's the nature of them. We give up freedoms in order to get some sort of protection, whether that be from an army, a police force, or social services. So how do we measure if a law is worth giving up a little bit of freedom or not?

 

I tend to be a law minimalist myself. I tend toward conservative, or even libertarian sometimes. I just don't see any downside to carseat laws and only positives. Maybe it is just because I agree with them? I don't know.

 

For carseat laws and most traffic laws, I find that they are mostly governed by logic and that there is a clear black-and-white. They aren't as subjective to me as other laws which are based more on opinions. There is scientific evidence to back them up, they help those who are unable to help themselves (children), and they aren't very hard to implement or enforce. For these reasons, I think they are are perfectly acceptable. Like I said before though, no one has to agree with me.

Edited January 21, 2012 by MeaganS
clarification

[Murphy101]

You can't legislate common, good, decent sense.

 

Heck, people can't even agree on what's common, good, decent sense!

 

I think it's admirable, but silly, to try to save people from themselves.

 

Yep. And vehicles and carseats are not cheaper than healthy food and exercise.

 

I vote for the healthiest and safest option.

Make all motorized vehicles illegal.

No need for carseats and everyone has to exercise to get anywhere.

 

When people argue safety is the most important thing, my vote illustrates they are wrong. They are willing to unnecessarily risk their safety. Everyday.

[SKL]

IFor carseat laws and most traffic laws, I find that they are mostly governed by logic and that there is a clear black-and-white. They aren't as subjective to me as other laws which are based more on opinions. There is scientific evidence to back them up, they help those who are unable to help themselves (children), and they aren't very hard to implement or enforce. For these reasons, I think they are are perfectly acceptable. Like I said before though, no one has to agree with me.

 

Another way to put it is that the ever-increasing reach of car seat laws is arbitrary and fails to sufficiently take into account individual differences.

 

The incidence of auto-related injury and death is too high overall. BUT the incidence of it in children who are restrained in a seat belt OR car seat/booster is VERY LOW. The vast majority of the risk is removed by just caring and thinking enough to use some kind of restraint. The incidence of serious injury or death from being in a car accident WHILE RESTRAINED is lower than many everyday risks that the government does not legislate away.

[twoxcell]

Well considering the number 1 cause of death for children in the US is motor vehicle accidents I think the car seat laws are warranted. Sadly too many people don't even follow them.

[MSNative]

I've been thinking about what's been said. I'm reminded of the quote by Camus - "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." I guess I wonder when we decide that just 'cause something is good doesn't mean we need to have a law making everyone do it.

[In The Great White North]

There is no way to make sure everyone is complying with a law that requires people to eat certain foods or to exercise.

 

Sure there is. Use your imagination. Readsome science fiction.

[Murphy101]

Sure there is. Use your imagination. Readsome science fiction.

 

Indeed. Don't even need sci fi.

[Laura in MI]

I agree. But by that same logic, the laws made that govern the road were made by the people and for the people. Laws are necessary because without them there would be chaos. Without laws, the roads would be even more unsafe than they are now.

 

The problem is, laws always take away our freedoms. That's the nature of them. We give up freedoms in order to get some sort of protection, whether that be from an army, a police force, or social services. So how do we measure if a law is worth giving up a little bit of freedom or not?

 

I tend to be a law minimalist myself. I tend toward conservative, or even libertarian sometimes. I just don't see any downside to carseat laws and only positives. Maybe it is just because I agree with them? I don't know.

 

For carseat laws and most traffic laws, I find that they are mostly governed by logic and that there is a clear black-and-white. They aren't as subjective to me as other laws which are based more on opinions. There is scientific evidence to back them up, they help those who are unable to help themselves (children), and they aren't very hard to implement or enforce. For these reasons, I think they are are perfectly acceptable. Like I said before though, no one has to agree with me.

 

:iagree: