Seatbelts no protection on slippery slope to the nanny state
Re: “Seatbelts are far from a personal choice”, Have Your Say, August 11.
Whether or not one should be forced to wear seatbelts, or crash helmets for that matter, depends on how far we are prepared to allow a nanny state to interfere in our lives, and where the balance should lie between liberty and totalitarianism.
The libertarian John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) said, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others ... His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
Dr Ho, referring to welfare-statist UK in her letter, appears to argue that Mill’s “harm to others” is harm to “society”, which has to pick up the tab for excessive injuries caused by failure to belt up, and which may be further deprived of the injured person’s contribution to it.
The interests of the individual are therefore subordinate to those of the state. But the UK individual is forced to pay taxes, whether he likes it or not, to finance the massive welfare budget which comprises 35 per cent of total government expenditure.
A cynic might suggest that this should entitle the unbelted tax-paying car driver to fly through his windscreen at will in order to get his money’s worth.
As a libertarian, I regard the monstrous UK welfare state as a very bad thing, socially and psychologically. It has destroyed personal responsibility and led to a broken society.
I know I speak for many expats in Thailand when I say we are here because we enjoy greater freedom, we value our self-reliance and we accept the risks – such as a traffic fatality rate more than 10 times Britain’s.
We also accept that when we’re picked up by the body-snatchers, bloody and broken from the middle of the road, there will be no cost to society because we will be paying for it. Okay, Thailand has introduced seatbelt and helmet laws (which are widely ignored), but I hope it thinks twice before descending further down the slippery slope of welfarism.
As a final comment, one can only wonder why Dr Ho abandoned the nanny-statism of the UK, which she obviously admires, to return to Malaysia.
Nigel Pike
