We Don't Fine the Overweight for Eating at KFC or Why Seatbelt Laws are the Trojan Horse of Fascism.

submitted by Antarchomachus from self.conspiracy

Disclaimer: I choose to wear a seatbelt when I drive

But this is precisely why seatbelt laws are dangerous - most reasonable people would wear them anyway. We shrug off the tyranny of this law because it doesn't really affect our behavior. What it does do is set a strong precedent for outlawing behavior that affects nobody else but yourself.

This is not just a legal precedent. The Public Health Fascists use this as moral justification for continuing to mandate a vaccine even after it was shown that it does not prevent the spread of the virus.

It is just as reasonable to require a health pass to eat at KFC, so why isn't that a law? Because the government doesn't care about your health. Unhealthy food is bad for you, but good for the economy! So are all the Statin drugs, type 2 diabetes medications and Doctor visits you will likely need. We spend more money on health care than any other first world country, and have the worst health outcomes. It's not about health.

Seatbelt laws are all about compliance. Don't stop wearing your seatbelt, but do stop supporting fascist regulations. If for some reason I didn't want to wear my seatbelt, it's no more your business than my diet. Seatbelt laws just pave the way for more fascist control in the name of protecting us from ourselves, and nobody should want to live in a world where the government and big business makes these decisions for us. Maybe you are OK with seatbelts and vaccines, but at some point someone will decide that something YOU want or do not want to do is a danger to yourself, and you won't have any ground left to stand on.

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

But this is precisely why seatbelt laws are dangerous - most reasonable people would wear them anyway.

You date yourself, you must be younger than the seatbelt laws. I remember those times. Adoption was an issue, nobody wore seatbelts. Cars didn't always even come with seatbelts because there was no demand for it. That's why they made it a law.

Even as few as 30 years ago (sic), in 1982, only 11% of drivers used seat belts. Ever since the 1960s, the number of people using seat belts has risen steadily due to legislation and legal initiatives.

the government doesn't care about your health.

They don't, but they care how much you cost them. The "Opiate Epidemic" is a perfect ongoing example. It's not about saving lives, or helping junkies, or the welfare of the public, it's about money. Junkies and otherwise unhealthy people cost states big bucks.

Now, I bet you think enjoying a beer while driving is insane too, of course probably while not wearing a seat belt. Man, those were the days. You know we only save like 2,000 lives a year because of DUI laws? That's some bullshit. You used to be able to go for a drive in true comfort.

And look at how much money those DUI laws are used to squeeze from otherwise safe drivers who may have had as little as one or two beers. That's why the state likes em, but it's actually pushed by MADD, which has become an abolitionist movement. They aren't for safe driving, they're against alcohol. They want .05% limits too, and will probably get it.

Soon you won't be able to use mouthwash without it causing a DUI if you get caught.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You are correct, I was indeed born in 1984 and was unaware this was ever controversial. I rarely heard reference to it until recently in comparison to vaccinations. I hear you on the Opioid Epidemic - we did care about this - eventually (Dopesick on Hulu is an excellent watch on this subject) which somewhat counters my argument I admit. I guess my question is where is the line then? Because we don't have a national war on the overweight, or those eating an unhealthy diet, or making a multitude of other poor health choices.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was indeed born in 1984

I was born in 80, guess a few years made a difference.

Sorry this goes way off on a tangent.

Opioid Epidemic - we did care about this

They cut off pain medications not only chronic pain patients, but even dying cancer patients right at the beginning. People are only told half the story. Here's the real motivation, check out the subsection Current State of the Legal Proceedings (2022). Those lawsuits are a total money machine for lawyers.

And opioid deaths are higher than ever even though it has never been more difficult to get prescription opioids. Just now if you have surgery you get to suffer.

I don't think my respect for doctors could go any lower. They are knowingly complicit in the suffering of untold millions. Too afraid to lose their DEA # to speak up. Won't even employ their well funded lobbies. Dentists also.

I guess my question is where is the line then?

That's a good question. There exists, I suppose, some ideal equilibrium point between personal freedom and nanny government protection. Not sure what it is.

Because we don't have a national war on the overweight, or those eating an unhealthy diet, or making a multitude of other poor health choices.

There has been a global WHO campaign against smoking since the 70s. That's done very well. Smoking went up during the pandemic and that's the first time in 30 or 40 years that happened. There is federal US funding for local anti-obesity campaigns, but obviously they aren't fixing the problem.

There's a lot of money in making people fat, billions in junk food, billions in the weight loss industry, billions in pharmaceuticals... There's massive companies who only make stuff people should probably never eat. The economy would take a serious blow.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was somewhat aware of the chronic pain patients being accused of 'drug seeking', the cancer patients I hadn't heard about, but you are right - it's way too easy to lose sight of their suffering in my anger at big pharma greed.

I have a similar lack of trust of doctors and the regulatory agencies, and big $$ is usually involved, I think we agree on those ideas at least. I can tend to get a little uppity about my freedoms in general, and an authoritarian response coupled with an extreme lack of trust in said authorities, can make me a bit agitated at times.

I agree there has got to be a balance of personal freedom with common interests, hopefully we can learn to do a better job at this. Good chatting with you friend.

[–]wxyz 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Seat belt laws are about the first responders and general public when crashes happen. I agree it isn't really about your personal individual safety though that is how a politician or many others spin such policies. The system of public policy like first responders do not want to impaled bodies needing to be pulled down out of trees, pulling bodies off of steering columns upon which they were impaled, or shoveling them up from the roadway after they are slide across the rough pavement which acts as a cheese grater. The first responders do not want the mental trauma/haunts of such visuals which were common before seatbelts, and nor do we want such haunts/visuals for the general public which witnesses crash scenes from time to time.

Funny fact is when seat belts were introduced auto crashes went UP... so you could argue they lowered personal safety in that one sense. Seat belts provided a feeling of safety so people were less worried about getting into a crash so they drove more risky/fast/fun. When people knew you could be thrown clear through the windshield IF you crashed or impaled upon your steering column you drove a lot more carefully than people do when knowing are strapped into the seat. They also didn't have safety glass originally so going through your windshield was likely to decapitate you or slice you to bits.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for the reply wxyz. Yeah, I am familiar with Ralph Nader's 'Unsafe at any Speed', so I have heard a few of these facts, though I had forgotten about this and glad you brought these points up.

The psychological effects of witnessing such horrific accidents you mention are also valid.

This debate has more nuance than my somewhat purposefully inflammatory rhetoric was suggesting. I think I wanted people to consider where the limits of personal safety enforcement ought to be, but talking to you thoughtful saiditers has made me realize there are other factors to consider as well, and the calculus isn't so simple. Appreciate the thought provoking discussion.

[–]wxyz 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Same issues exist for motorcycle helmet laws.(brain buckets) Some states require them, others don't. If you crash on a motorcycle at like 30+ mph you are more likely to bleed out (road rash) or die from blunt force. In no place that I know of do we legally require motorcycle riders to wear protective gear or heavy clothing (outside of helmets) because I suppose its not as messy/gory to wash blood & skin away with a power washer, but we do (in some states) require helmets because lets be honest nobody wants to shovel up brains, or wants to see a person missing half their skull.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am sympathetic to that. My post was a bit of hyperbole inspired by frustration that laws surrounding protecting us for our own good are somewhat inconsistent ideologically. I think I just wanted people to think about where and hoe we ought to draw the line - I'll admit I don't have the answer, its a complex and nuanced issue even if I want to pretend it's simple sometimes.

[–]Markimus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm a fascist and I'm perfectly fine with your killing your own self through stupid choices. This has nothing to do with fascism.

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There are some nuances to this. Hear me out.

If you are riding on a motorcycle and you don't want to wear a helmet, a lot of people are thinking that you are only risking your own life and that is a risk you should be willing to take. But you don't always just die. You could become a vegetable and have to be taken care of at government's expense. You could have children, and if you become a vegetable or die, the government has to take care of them.

If you are riding in a car without a seatbelt, similarly you're not the only one at risk. Your body becomes a missile and can injure or kill other people in the car. And, again, you might not die. My grandfather was a firefighter in the 60s and 70s before seatbelt use was widespread. His fire truck was t-boned by a drunk driver going 100mph. The fire truck was hit so hard it tipped onto its side. He spent weeks in the hospital and months recuperating before he could return to his job. The drunk driver was killed, of course.

If you go to public school or university, spreading disease is one vector where your own inadvertent actions can kill or disable others. So you have to have a very long list of vaccine injections by the time you are old enough for elementary school. They are compulsory or you cannot attend. That's the part that anti-vaxxers seem to not want to engage with. If you are resistant to taking a new vaccine, what about all the other dozens of them you had by the time you were five years old? Why no protest until now? If you were truly a staunch lifelong believer, wouldn't you have already protested?

I think anti-vaxxers should have to start their own schools or homeschool their kids. Stay out of public theaters, restaurants, stores, concerts unless they are willing to submit to PCR testing before entering, at their own expense. If you want to be a burden to society, you should pay the price for your burden. Isn't the republican party the party of personal responsibility?

One further thing I want to interject into the conversation: The bible says, if you are sick, you are to stay outside of town, cover your face with a piece of cloth, and shout "unclean! unclean!" if anyone tries to approach you. Whenever I point this out to a "Christian" anti-vaxxer, crickets.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks for the reply, I hear some of your points and have a response for you.

First, I am not a republican or a christian, I am a registered Democrat believe it or not, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary and Green Party in the General

Second, the difference between this vaccine and others is that since I got a measles and tetanus vaccine, I cannot be infected with Tetanus or Measles or transmit it to others. Not the case with this vaccine.

Third, OK then where does it end? Would you also be okay with ticketing the overweight and firing them when they get diabetes and heart disease and end up in the ICU or unable to care for their children?

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am also a Berniecrat. Fist bump. I voted for him in the primary (twice) and wrote him in during the general election (twice) because he wasn't on the ballot.

In terms of it being a leaky vaccine, you do have a point. And I think it got lost in the noise, being that this virus mutates fast, the whole point wasn't to eradicate the virus. We can't do that for the flu or the common cold either. The point was to keep the medical system from collapsing entirely. I saw the original report that was leaked from the Trump administration (220 pages long) analyzing all the ins and outs. If we had done nothing, 2.2 million people would now be dead. So we are doing some good, not enough.

I do think that medical insurance may start charging extra for no-vaxxers (or giving vaxxers a discount, which is the same thing). Since I don't set policy, and I really have no impact at all except for the town forum like this one... no one asked me, so my opinion doesn't really have any weight.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Honestly, its great just to have a conversation with someone who doesn't either fully agree with me, or think I am a monster, lol. It's honestly the hyper-politicization media coverage that has me screaming bloody fascism with all the Trumpers, and I forget that when I resort to the same sort of inflexibility and 'othering' that I am no different than what I am protesting about.

Between Bernie supporters, my 'vaccine hesitation' was purely based on skepticism that Big Pharma was accurately representing the safety and efficacy of their drug. I think that got lost in my anger when I didn't find much ideological support from the left. I think you are right that the vaccines have likely saved lives, however I they also appear less safe and effective than originally advertised, and that is a little concerning to me when we are firing people for not doing something. Perhaps it would be better to object to where the bar is, not that it exists, you've certainly given me something to think about.

This is my first day on saidit, and happy to have a quality interaction already. Looking forward to future discussions.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I probably shouldn't have made the tone of this post so combative - I appreciate the thought you put into your response, and am realizing that my rhetoric may not be the best way to get the nuance of my own arguments across. Things are so divisive right now, it's easy to get sucked in. Thanks for tempering my outrage friend.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

gotta get rid of all the vaccine requirements, those were like seatbelts never should have been allowed. Those were when you were a baby or a kid so you didn't know any better. We'd all be smarter and healthier without them.

The bible thing is about circucmcision, and we must outlaw that too.

[–]Brewdabier 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I read about the seatbelt law and people who hated it, I think they were called Neanderthals.

[–]chadwickofwv 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

That's what happens when you stand up to fascism. Every word said about you is a slur. Also, when they get enough power they will murder you.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I laughed at this as well, but only out of hopeless agreement

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LMAO! Well, I guess we disagree, but I appreciate your sense of humor. Thanks for the laugh!

[–]yetanotherone_sigh 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, some thoughts on healthcare. The healthcare system will sell you drugs or whatever, regardless of your state of health. But the price is another matter. They charge you more if you're a smoker. So does life insurance.