-7
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by yodeljunkmanenvy@piefed.social to c/libertarian@sh.itjust.works
all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] ozymandias@sh.itjust.works 11 points 8 months ago

the reason a seatbelt isn’t “on you” to die, is after a collision it still helps everyone else for the driver to be conscious and still in the driver’s seat, to like steer and hit the brakes….

the car still moves immediately after a collision, it’s best if the driver hits the brakes, puts it in park and turns the engine off.

[-] Lumidaub@feddit.org 11 points 8 months ago

Don't you dare come yelling for an ambulance after you've gone through the windshield.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

New Hampshire: live free and die

[-] yodeljunkmanenvy@piefed.social -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Like, tbh i don't even disagree. It's a dumb hill to die on and I think you're an idiot for taking that right up, but yeah it probably should only be mandatory that functioning seat belts be in every occupiable seat in a vehicle, not that they be used.

But I stand by my stance on New Hampshire, they die on stupid hills in the name of freedom and rarely die on hills worth dying on in the name of freedom. The way they talk youd think they'd have legalized recreational psychedelics.

[-] yodeljunkmanenvy@piefed.social -1 points 8 months ago

There is a saying: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. You are right. Seat belt laws are a small victory, but you start somewhere and build momentum.
This year we eliminated car inspections, and we are the only state in the US that doesn't require auto insurance. If you cannot pass the small things, you definitely won't win the big things.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

See those two are things I disagree with. Mandatory insurance and mandatory inspections aren't about your right to get yourself killed, they're about not letting you hurt others through negligence. If you're gonna get rid of those things you might as well go all the way and stop requiring a license to drive.

[-] yodeljunkmanenvy@piefed.social -3 points 8 months ago

If you’re gonna get rid of those things you might as well go all the way and stop requiring a license to drive.

Hopefully we can one day!

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Good luck. I'll keep off your roads myself, they sound uniquely unsafe.

[-] yodeljunkmanenvy@piefed.social -1 points 8 months ago

ZNlzwbb1gkClEPz.webp “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~ Benjamin Franklin

[-] GhostedIC@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

Mixed mood on this. On the one hand insurance companies are awful, and they get worse and worse for knowing you're legally required to be a customer. On the other hand, getting hit by someone with no liability insurance fucking sucks. This is one area where I think the public sector can actually be a better solution.

I'm more favorable to eliminating car inspections though. They get abused by mechanic shops who have a captive customer.

[-] yodeljunkmanenvy@piefed.social 0 points 8 months ago

I’m more favorable to eliminating car inspections though. They get abused by mechanic shops who have a captive customer.

It's already done! 🙂 https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/mandatory-annual-car-inspections-eliminated-new-hampshire/

this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
-7 points (26.7% liked)

Libertarian Discussion

377 readers
1 users here now

Place for discussion from a Libertarian perspective, meaning less top-down control and more individual liberty. In general, the intent is discussion about issues and not a discussion on libertarianism itself or any of its branches.

Be sure to respect the instance rules, and please keep discussion civil and backed by high quality sources where possible.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS