Reader Question: Helmet-less Livestock?

Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply!

Roland asks: I agree with you (in re helmet laws and other saaaaaaaaafety busybodyism) And would point out that the Hall Monitors who hyperventilate over my decisions do that with a perceived vested interest in my life. Because my screw-ups potentially cost others due to the shared risk of the insurance industry and the potential for my screw-ups costing society because I’m no longer a productive member thereof but a burden, due to my medical condition. Funny, innit, how the same crowd of Nanny state ninnies would import as many unvetted, possibly diseased, most likely unskilled and hardly beneficial to American society as possible. But, I didn’t notice where you accused them of being logical. I’m waiting on the car to not go in gear until the seatbelt is latched. I read all your articles. Thanks for those!

My reply: The argument is, indeed, that harms I cause myself will impose “costs on society.” The counterargument is to not accept the underlying collectivist premise. Just as “society” (no such thing actually exists; there are only individual people) has no right to impose harms on me for not causing harm to anyone (the mere act of riding without a helmet does not necessarily lead to any actual harm) by the same token, I have no right to impose harms on anyone by forcing them to pay for the negative results (if any) of my riding without a helmet.

In other words, if I choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and injure myself, it is on me.

No one else should be forced to “help” me.

The alternative  is to accept busybodyism without limit. Eating “too much” meat could impose costs on society; ergo, people must be forced to not eat “too much” (and perhaps no read meat).  Those who don’t exercise impose costs on society; therefore, failing to exercise regularly should be fined. And so on. Without limit.

When this is understood, even the most ardent busybody might have second thoughts since there is something each of us do – or don’t do – that could conceivably “impose costs on society.”

Who wants to live in such a society?

Not me!

And, you’re quite right in re the tsunami of illegals. I have made a similar observation in re the “security” folderol at the airport. I am forced to submit to groping of my crotch but almost anyone can slip across the border without slowing down to spit on the ground. Couldn’t a “terrorist” get into the country this way? But that’s okay. Apparently.

Because the true object isn’t to “keep us safe.” It is to keep us cowed. To normalize the treatment of American citizens like livestock.

And we know what happens to livestock, eventually.

. . .