The Value of the Unrestrained Ride over Safety: Individual Choice in the Age of Coercion

New Hampshire is the only state in the union to not have mandatory motorcycle helmet laws and seat belt laws in automobiles for adults. The stated reason for this is the philosophy that the government should not protect you from yourself. If one voluntarily chooses to pursue a course of action, so long as it does not violate anyone else’s person or property, it should be respected as the conscious decision of a free adult.

I recently hiked Humphrey’s Peak in Flagstaff, Arizona, and as I was coming back down to the tree line, it began to rain and we could hear thunder, obviously the necessary conditions for lightning. And as we were coming down, we passed people who were surprisingly on their way up, with another hour or two of hiking to go in the totally exposed mountain top above the tree line! We warned them of what they might encounter, but they foolhardily continued their trek to the mountain’s peak. Should I have stopped them against their will with force? Should the government intervene when people take stupid risks that are not violating the rights of others?

I personally find it absurd to risk being struck by lightning on top of mountain with no cover, or to ride a motorcycle without proper protective gear, which gives one the worthy title of squid, on account of that’s what one looks like when one crashes. As far as not wearing a seatbelt in the car, why I would never do that! It’s not worth the risk of flying through the windshield in my estimate. Some adults, however, feel that it is worth the risk. They value the comfort of an unrestrained ride more than the amount of safety gained by wearing a seatbelt in a car or protective gear on a motorcycle. When someone takes a risk like that, no matter how silly it may seem to an outsider, it should be respected as the voluntarily decision of a free adult.

Of course, you are able to use your reasoning abilities to try to convince someone that they have sized the situation up incorrectly; that they are acting irrationally. However, to use the government’s monopoly on force to coerce people to operate against their own will and judgment when violating no one else’s person or property is tyrannical. It assumes that adults are unable to make important decisions for themselves and need the government to force them into compliance. If we follow this reasoning, we should surely outlaw fatty and salty foods, cigarettes, and sunscreen will soon be mandatory at all outdoor locales in central and southern Arizona!

It’s a dangerous road to go. One can try to convince people to freely accept a healthier or a safer lifestyle, but it is wrong to impose it upon them with the use of force so long as they are violating no one’s person or property. We shouldn’t use the police to pull the cheeseburger out of your mouth or enforce mandatory exercise in support of public health. It is a violation of individual rights and Liberty to pursue such a regimen of coercive intervention.