The Right to Risk

[@AndreiHaiduc]

The helmet can make you feel more safe and you tend to ride at higher speeds...

[@winston1788]

As does a car windshield.

[@offgridliving7553]

I agree with this statement. I figured that out 40 yrs ago changing from an open face (3/4) to a full face. "Shagging It" was an understatement & I even survived it by God's Grace alone.

[@alanaldpal950]

Love Milton, bur gotta disagree (partly) here….. I am fine if you don’t want to wear a helmet, but when (not if) you have an accident don’t make society pay even a penny towards the treatment of any resulting brain injury.

[@theunaccompaniedsenior]

Cities issue building permits for development on flood plains and in fire zones---then bail them out when a predictable disaster happens. These same homedwelling losers reject any suggestion that homeless folks receive state support of any kind, because homeless folks "make bad life decisions".

[@winston1788]

Which is a problem of socialism, not of liberty.

[@aakk1164]

@@winston1788exactly just proved Friedmans point, which would not make society pay for it because the insurance company would be a private enterprise and not mandatory to have one. Accidents are unfortunate nonetheless

[@Hyrochi1]

Anyone knows which lecture this snippet is taken from?

[@matthewghardy]

Insurance companies. That's all you need to know.

[@LLiivveeeevviiLL]

Friedman would agree on that, as it is a market mechanism.

[@Mrspocksays7654]

The deontological overrides the teleological. Basically this is what he is saying. I tend to agree.

[@jorgecamacho7535]

I thought driving was a privilege.

[@paulrevere2379]

That depends on what kind of country you live in. In a totalitarian country it is a privilege. If you are visiting another country it is a privilege. If you are a citizen of a free country then personal conveyance using a motor vehicle on public roads is no different than driving a bicycle now is. If you enter onto private property (yourself with or without a vehicle) then it is up to rules set by that property owner. If you are being paid to drive then it is no longer just personal conveyance, there are third parties involved making room for reasonable laws such as skill level requirements, safety features and so on.

[@paulrevere2379]

Of course this begs some questions such as this: Are US cutizens still free. Answer: Not as free as we once were, not as free as we ought to be. We still have some freedoms, but too many of them are being treated as privileges we have to earn by being good compliant subjects to an ever growing tyrannical system.

[@Rwnjthe1st]

Do you believe in insurance company profits or not?

[@GabbleFolk]

Should insurance companies be prohibited from staying solvent? Yes or no.

[@Rwnjthe1st]

@ i think they should force us into a protective custody setting and extract forced labor as a premium for the safety they provide to us.

[@raywhite7742]

Yeah... But when the state has to scrape his body off the road and transport him to a hospital regardless of whether he has insurance to cover it, then society loses.

[@GabbleFolk]

Society loses anyway by having that system

[@scottaustinmartin]

What about the third parties that have to scrape your face off the road

[@immaculatesquid]

i was more so thinking even if you can’t make a law for a helmet I think goggles would have to be mandatory because all it takes is one tiny debris getting in your eyes and you crash into someone or they swerve to avoid killing you and hit someone else. there’s just way too much room for shit to go wrong, and that shouldn’t be everyone else’s problem in a just society. I honestly wonder how milton would respond to that.

[@paulrevere2379]

​@@immaculatesquidFar far more people die prematurely from heart disease and the medical costs to society are arguably far higher than a one time accident cleanup. At times laws have been tried to keep people from doing deadly harm to themselves with food. These have been all around failures for many reasons not least of which is the stupidity of the guidance from "government medical experts". Remember the insanely backwards food pyrimid telling us to load up on carbs every day? Just one example. Should there be something in place that gets people to wear seatbelts and helmets? Yes I think there should be, but the answer should not be laws that classify someone as a criminal if they don't comply. Some possibilities. #1 Have it invalidate insurance claims if safety items are neglected. #2 Increase the skill level required for state issued drivers licences. A requirement for unlicenced drivers to use safety equipment while in "training" is not as bad as a universal law but it helps promote the use of belts/helmets. #3 If laws are a must (maybe so, maybe not) then let the law make drivers more responsible for passengers. If everyone knew that any injuries to passengers would bring down all costs on them when safety features are not in place then very few would take the risk. We have had great success with reducing drunk driving this way over recent decades even with the penalties still being relatively minor compared to the infraction. Freedom is not a guarantee of safety. You can be made perfectly safe from any kind of auto accident by lifetime incarceration. Freedom does in fact mean the freedom to put your own life at risk. It does not mean the license to put others at risk.

[@turdferguson8704]

As the saying goes, you can choose freedom or safety….

[@jaghad]

What do you do with an animal that you've hit with the car?

[@GabbleFolk]

What about them? Should deer also pay every time one gets hit by a car? Someone has to scrape it off the roads

[@williamsohveymah5550]

You are responsible for your own choices and actions. It is not free agency(freedom) but only agency. What you choose is yours. Owe up to it.

[@RezaRob3]

This is more complicated than Milton Friedman makes it seem. I'm a big believer in Freedom, but at least the person should sign a clear waiver and announce this fact to his next of kin and insurance company who would have to take care of him if he disables himself for life. I still think he should have the freedom to do it, but with conditions. Taxpayers pay for the roads and for the people who die on them. They deserve some say in the matter.

[@LLiivveeeevviiLL]

insurance companies will surely take conditions into consideration.That is a market mechanism, which Friedman would see as a valid argument. One could of course say the same with public health, keep the freedom but you will be sorted down in priority in triage-process.

[@RezaRob3]

@@LLiivveeeevviiLL Would you say the same thing if the guy had dependent children and was a single parent? Maybe the best solution to these problems is to encourage a culture of safety and educate. But you know, I think it's perfectly reasonable for government to build roads and then say that only self-driving vehicles are allowed on these roads, for everyone's safety. Notice, even Milton says, regulations are ok for preventing injury to other people. That's what speed limits are.

[@jaghad]

​@@RezaRob3 You sir are in shackles, and you don't even know it. 🤡

[@mrjohnnyastro]

I rarely agree with this nut, but he is spot on regarding individual safety choices

[@JackBenny-v6k]

Wake up people. The insurance lobby is responsible for mandatory helmets. It limits their payouts.

[@dablyputs]

Humans are deeply connected to one another. Beyond the physical trauma the unnecessary death of one person has an impact on others. This should be somewhat obvious.

[@turdferguson8704]

But are you free or not?

[@puckhead1909]

Let's ask Gary Busey what he thinks oops he can't anymore. Pure pandering here.

[@WilliamLove-q4d]

If we have to pay for insurance, we should only have to do it one time unless we’re in an accident. The money should roll over and not get people that sell insurance wealthier and wealthier. It should be a state program federal program who cares you drive a car you paid maybe 300 a year if you don’t get in an accident it rolls over.

[@elgallosabio4364]

Who is going to pay the hospitals the several hundreds of thousands of dollars required to treat your serious head injuries? I do not care for nanny states and micro-managing your safety, but in return, the risk taker must prepare to pay for your treatment due to your stupid behavior and not expect the people to pay for your carelessness.

[@bicualexandru246]

In a non socialist society medical care is your responsability as an individual. To either have insurance or the funds required to pay for your own treatment. If you are willing to bring the argument to this, I can easily point out to you, that in this case, if the state is the one responsible for your medical care and can dictate the parameters in which you conduct your business (obligated to wear a helmet or face a fine or losing your license) then in that situation the government is your owner and you are it's slave. It sounds bad but that is the reality of the facts of a socialist enterprise. I would much rather have individuals be responsible for their individual care or life in general. I really really dislike nanny states.

[@elgallosabio4364]

@bicualexandru246 I agree 100%. We need to take personal responsibilty or we are slaves. My point is if you demand big government to take care of you, big state owns you. I cannot remember who said it, but I agree with their statement thst goes something like this - "if you prefer safety over freedom, then you deserve neither and will have neither."

[@nero_defi]

Milton Friedman never advocated for the Welfare State. Therefore, public healthcare was out of discussion for him, hence the idea that the biker bears the consequences of his actions if he's not insured.

[@pedroteixeira5789]

With the cost to the health service.

[@AtomicHermit]

The cost of your dearh or injury is born by society, so even if you have a death wish, your beliefs are not grounds to reject efforts taken by society to fulfil the principle responsibility of government, to protect the rights of all citizens, including life upon which all other rights depend.

[@dieterjacobs9350]

Seriously? WTF is this guy smoking.....

[@Lucas-fo8ci]

Who's going to clean up your body? Who is going to compensate everyone stuck in traffic because you died in the road? This is why safety is required.

[@daytradersanonymous9955]

😂😂 your naive

[@bicualexandru246]

The body will be cleaned up from the myriad of useless taxes that are taken from you for your entire life. Many of which benefit you in no way whatsoever. As for people stuck in traffic ... if you crash your motorcycle and it spills it's oils on the road making it dangerous to drive, what is the relevance of the helmet? in the event of a crash traffic will be cordoned off regardless of wether or not your are wearing a helmet. Your brains are not what is making the road dangerous to drive, it's the oil or the fuel mixture that can light up from the hot tailpipe. Like the man said, it really is a litmus test if someone believes in freedom or not. You should listen to this speech in particular, it's extremely well articulated.

[@nero_defi]

The road is cleaned by the landowner in a society that runs exclusively on private property. He has every incentive to do so, or else the road will get congested.

[@livefreeordie3149]

Safety regs are required to protect idiots. Without them, we could cleanse the gene pool.

[@Longtack55]

A fatal head injury to a cyclist caused by a motorist negates his argument

[@winston1788]

Not at all.

[@chrisdemopolis2245]

Foolish statement. But that’s why you’re a corporate slave and have zero clue

[@winston1788]

If a hospital is forced to subsidize any dangerous behavior, that's not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism.