I bought a crash helmet in 1962, the year I bought a used Honda Dream 150. I drove in my parents' car to Bell, California, and bought a Bell helmet at the factory. Honda and Bell helmets have done very well since 1962.
I did not ride my motorcycle without wearing my helmet. It even had a plastic face shield. I knew what a head injury could do.
At least 20 years later, I heard a radio talk show host discussing a proposed state law mandating helmets for motorcycle users. He was opposed to this law. He was challenged by a caller who told him that crash victims would be taken to public hospitals, where they would receive treatment for head injuries. The taxpayers would have to pay for this treatment. So, to reduce this expense, the state should pass a crash helmet law. The talk show host switched sides. He saw the logic of the case.
So did I.
Here is the logic of the case, as debated by the Crash Helmet Guy (CHG) and the laissez faire guy (LFG).
CHG: The state ought to have a law mandating that all motorcycle riders should wear a state-approved crash helmet when riding their motorcycles.
LFG: Why is that?
CHG: Because, if he crashes, he might suffer a head injury.
LFG: Or he might not. Probably, he won't.
CHG: But he might.
LFG: That is true. So what?
CHG: What do you mean "so what?" We are talking about brain injuries here. We don't want people to be brain dead.
LFG: No, we don't. But why is it our responsibility as voters to keep people from becoming brain dead?
CHG: Because we pay taxes.
LFG: I don't follow.
CHG: We pay taxes to run hospitals.
LFG: That is true.
CHG: Voters have an obligation to reduce waste in tax-funded hospitals.
LFG: Yes, they do.
CHG: So, to hold down head injury costs, voters should pass a crash helmet law.
LFG: You mean like seat belt laws.
CHG: Exactly.
LFG: There is an easier way to cut costs in tax-funded hospitals.
CHG: What is that?
LFG: Stop funding them with taxes.
CHG: You mean close them?
LFG: Not necessarily. Just stop all payments.
CHG: But that would mean that taxpayers have no responsibility for sick people.
LFG: As taxpayers. As individuals, that is a matter of conscience. As taxpayers, they have no responsibility.
CHG: But that would mean the state could not use this argument for mandating seat belts: "This will save the state money."
LFG: Correct.
CHG: But if the state cannot justify mandatory seat belts, then it could not justify mandatory crash helmets.
LFG: Correct.
CHG: But we need a mandatory crash helmet law.
LFG: Why is that?
CHG: To protect people.
LFG: From whom?
CHG: From themselves.
LFG: You say that politicians must pass laws, enforced by bureaucrats, to force people to be responsible.
CHG: Of course.
LFG: Who defines responsibility?
CHG: Politicians and bureaucrats.
LFG: So, they know what's good for us.
CHG: Correct.
LFG: So, citizens must do what the state says.
CHG: If they know what's good for them, they do.
LFG: And if they don't?
CHG: The state will send out a person with a badge and a gun. This person will explain why they need to obey the law.
LFG: Using what argument?
CHG: "If you know what's good for you, you will obey this law."
LFG: But why is it the state's business to tell people what's good for them?
CHG: Because the government must do for people what they can't do for themselves.
LFG: Like deciding what is good for them.
CHG: Yes.
LFG: So, you favor tax-funded hospitals because people are irresponsible, and will not take care of themselves.
CHG: Yes.
LFG: And if we did not have tax-funded hospitals, the state would have a hard time persuading voters to accept mandatory seat belt laws and crash helmet laws.
CHG: Yes.
LFG: And laws against buying unpasteurized milk.
CHG: Yes.
LFG: So, if I understand you, you are saying that we need tax-funded hospitals, because without them, voters might not support mandatory crash helmet laws.
CHG: I don't like the way you are summarizing my logic.
LFG: Is my summary wrong?
CHG: I begin with a moral principle.
LFG: What is that principle?
CFG: That politicians and bureaucrats have the big picture. Individuals don't.
LFG: So, individuals have only the little picture.
CFG: Yes.
LFG: Like whether they should wear seat belts and crash helmets.
CGF: They don't have that picture, either.
LFG: Then what picture does the individual have?
CHG: If he knows what's good for him, he will do what the government says.
LFG: That's the big picture and the little picture.
CFG: I like to call it "alpha and omega."
LFG: I'll bet you do.
CFG: What is your alternative?
LFG: To let people decide whether to wear crash helmets.
CHG: But I have already explained: we need to cut down on hospital expenses.
LFG: And I have already explained how to do this.
CHG: Cut off all tax funding. I know.
LFG: Can you follow my logic?
CHG: Yes, but I don't like its starting point.
LFG: Which is what?
CHG: That an individual knows best whether he should wear a crash helmet.
LFG: Why don't you like that starting point?
CFG: Because I can see where it's going.
LFG: Where is it going?
CHF: To a conclusion that individuals know what is good for them better than politicians and bureaucrats do.
LFG: So, people should obey the government.
CHG: If they know what's good for them.
LFG: And if they don't?
CHG: Then it's flak jackets and head gear.
LFG: And maybe a few armored personnel carriers.
CHG: If required, yes.
LFG: So, it's a choice between crash helmets or SWAT helmets.
CHG: Basically, yes.
LFG: Maybe I should invest in companies that manufacture helmets. It sounds like a growth industry.
CHG: It does, doesn't it?
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.