h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

GB, you seem to be backing yourself into a corner and defending, now, what you found indefensible earlier on. If what you criticise in the governor, above, you put down to a democratic problem and not a political ideology problem then the same argument can be made for any system. Socialism is not anti democratic. You have already praised Sweden and that is an elected Socialist government. We have had several Labour Governments in the UK and one of the criticisms of the current one is that it is not socialist enough!

You call for less government but I think many people who fear the capitalist regime can only see government being replaced by corporate power and that scares the willies out of me! I have been watching what has been happening in many African states where the corporate power is the major oil companies and I don't like it.

I think your point about monopolies in the media is fair... but the people who wish to stand up for fairness and decency are not being motivated by money. The fact that many people who take a stand against injustice know that they will live quite poor lives. I think that that is an indication that the human spirit is not to be bought.

Why would you think that the human spirit is any different in Russia.

Also if the garbage collectors wage in the US is so good why is the job being done by people who are known for taking poor money because of their social and legal status? Surely all these students frying burgers would leave and shift garbage. Many of them really are only looking for money to pay school fees.

Garbage collection hours are generally during school hours, but fast food's peak hours are after school. And,, as I said, many people find garbage collecting beneath them, which is why garbage collectors are paid so well. It's such an undesired job that is has to attract people with good pay. This is capitalism at its finest.

That governor is an abberation of the political ideology, and a minority. When I point out the corrupt socialist governors, we find that they are a majority. That's not to say that our other leaders are angels, just that they're less scummy than that dude. All people who want power are this way, and socialism grants too much power to too many people.

Socialism isn't so much a political ideology as it is an economic one, and so I've been attacking the economic side. Socialism demands central planning, which demands an enormous government, which is the governmental side. When you get too much government, everything breaks down, because governments are just as selfish and unpredictable as corporations. Corporations, on the other hand, must appease the people, or go bankrupt, because they can't hold a gun to your head or throw you in prison for failure to purchase their product.

And because it seems like I am a lone voice in the sea here, I will leave you with a handful of quotations on the subject from a collection of moderately intelligent people.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is th equal sharing of misery.
-- Winston Churchill

I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature.
-- Sidney Hook

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.
-- Thomas Sowell (1992)


War has all the characteristics of socialism most conservatives hate: Centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties, foolish optimism about intended results, and blindness to unintended secondary results.
-- Joseph Sobran (1991)

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.
-- Thomas Jefferson (1801)

Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer.
-- Ludwig von Mises

Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping, and unintelligent.
-- H. L. Mencken

The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another.
-- Milton Friedman

Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
-- Daniel Webster

Whoever prefers life to death, happiness to suffering, well-being to misery must defend without compromise private ownership in the means of production.
-- Ludwig von Mises (1920)

Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your government is doing to you.
-- Joseph Sobran (1990)

The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.
-- Tacitus

Politicians are the same all over: they promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
-- Nikita Khrushchev (1960)

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
-- P.J. O'Rourke

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least."
-- Henry David Thoreau

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin (1755)

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by
legislation.
-- Thomas B. Reed (1886)

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.
-- Albert Einstein (1950)

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
-- Ronald Reagan (1986)

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
-- Thomas Jefferson (1791)

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw (1944)

Bye, GB. I'm sad to see you go.

Was I going somewhere?

Oh... methinks you are referring to that earlier comment in response to an inflammatory post. No worries there. It's easy to let your rhetoric get away from you in discussions of political, philosophical, or religious ideologies. One overexuberant post isn't such a terrible crime, and the poster has apologized, so we can get on with the discussion without any further unpleasantries.

I think I misread
"And because it seems like I am a lone voice in the sea here, I will leave you..."
I enjoyed the quotes!

On the point of socialism being an economic ideology it is in political arena and we are discussing capitalist v socialist government most of the time. Even though I know you are saying that capitalism is such a well put together system that it needs a minimum amount of governmetn for it to work to everyone's advantage.

One area we haven't touched upon yet is the way these ideologies have an impact on the environment. I have a horrible image in my mind of the planet earth appearing under the microscope of some superhuman power and the voice saying "There seems to be some sort of cancer destroying the planet. I think it's being caused by some sort of virus. Aha, I've isloated the little critter here. I'm going to call it human being."

My other concern is that capitalism is based on mass consumption which leads to overproductoin which by definition is using more than you need. With finite resources - even though they are seen as plentiful we will come to a sticky end.

My concern with capitalism is that a few people can plunder massive amounts of the planet's resources to feed a very small proportion of the population so that their populatoin doesn't die of malnutrition but from diseases brought on by overconsumption of food and drink.

My fault, apparently... when I said "I will leave you," is was a grandiose and confusing way of saying that I am wrapping up that particular post.

Capitalism is not a form of government. It is an economic ideology only. It would be possible to pursue a capitalist economic policy in a variety of forms of governments, but democratic ones seem to foster it more. It's not a very well put together system, and I defy anyone to say otherwise. It's just that it places faith and responsibility on the individual. An individual, working by himself, for himself, will generally make good decisions affecting his financial future. An idiot in a fancy office making sweeping generalisations will be operating on wild new economic theories as he makes decisions that affect millions of strangers he really doesn't care much about.

A national ecological policy is just as doomed to failure as any other national policy. A few tidbits:

-Global Warming and Greenhouse Effect: in 1992, a Gallup poll of 400 meteorologists and geophysicists found that 60% believed that global tempreatures had risen over the last century, but only 19% blamed man. Greenpeace picked their own 400 scientists, and the number fell to 13%. And just 20 years ago, there was an equivalent scare, but it was all about global *cooling.*

--Killing Trees For Computer Paper: 87% of paper stock in the US comes from trees grown as a crop specifically for that purpose. And the cultivation of hemp would eliminate that need, as well... so who is stopping us? The government.

--A National Recycling Program Will Save Us All: The National Wildlife Federation has found that recycling 100 tons of newspaper yields 40 tons of toxic waste.

--Pollution Is Killing the Environment: Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland are showing a general increase in forest resources, which Science Magazine credits to the fertilization effects of certain pollutants.

And now let's examine what an ecology looks like when it is managed by the state for the collective good: An area known as the Black Triangle exists in parts of East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. It's filled with strip mines, toxic waste dumps, and filthy factories. Everything is covered in soot. The sky is always a dingy brown. A 1991 Ministry of Environment report from the new Czech Republic is quoted thus: "As it follows out of analyses made by the most varied research institutes, in respect of principle environmental quality indicators we are the worst country in Europe." The Czech Republic has 1000 square kilometers of wasteland due to strip mining, an area roughly the size of Los Angeles, and they're obliterating historical villages (96 so far according to Greenpeace) to do so. The prize: a brown, brittle, impure coal that produces more smoke than heat. The coal belongs to the state, and the national coal company is mining it like mad, nevermind that they are having a devil of a time finding buyers, and that they're now 1 billion Czech crowns in debt, according to the Prague Post.

When left alone, people will find better energy sources. When the whale oil supply ran out, people made kerosene lamps, then electricity. Our dependence on fossil fuels is artificial, since inventions have been patented that will allow a car to get 100 miles to the gallon, or even run on alcohol. The OPEC nations now own those patents, and you can bet your ass they're not going to part with them anytime soon. Then they'd have to work for a living.

"Close your eyes and imagine your governor with a massively larger power base, and make him unimpeachable, and take away what little responsibility to the people he has now through the popular vote, and you've got socialism."

No, you've got totalitarianism. Socialism has more to do with economics.

You also stated that no state, no matter how backwater, has a media monopoly held by one newspaper. We have only one major paper, The Daily Oklahoman. Its owner, E.L. Gaylord (or E.K. I can't remember which of the two was the father), owns a news service which runs the local ABC affiliate. He also owns several other media companies, one of which indirectly runs the local NBC affiliate. I don't know who owns the CBS affiliate, but it won't air anything bad about the governor either. The newspaper was recently called the 'worst newspaper in America' by the Columbia Journalism Review, a trade publication held in regard by publishers. They were cited in the article for their constant political slant. Have you ever seen an editorial on the front page of the newspaper with print larger than the headlines? Every time an election comes up in which Mr. Gaylord has a strong opinion there is an editorial filled with lies on the front page. You are right, people should be screaming bloody murder, but most people don't hear the message because of the media blackout. Those who do hear the message don't have a party in this state because the democratic party has left us to be conservatives.

I agree with the statement made earlier (I forgot who made it) that a corporate controlled government gives them the willies. If corporations become more powerful than the government, you will see totalitarianism.

I agree with your summation of the lack of progression in automobiles. Did you know that since the '70s the oil companies have been buying up patents on solar power? I've heard all kinds of stories about people building 100 mpg carburetors and similar advances. Chrysler built a fleet of turbine cars in the '60s for research. The people who drove them thought they were great. The gas mileage was better, the power was near the same, and the reliability was unbelievable. After a year, Chrysler collected all the cars and crushed them (the cars were for test purposes only and titled as such, crushing had been the plan beforehand) stating that they required a few more years development. Since then there have been leaps in the turbine field, but still no turbine car. Chrysler claims there are still hurdles. Hybrid turbine/electric cars are very viable, but nobody will build them because they are too reliable. Auto manufacturers make almost no profit from selling cars, they make money selling parts to maintain and repair them. They would rather put more devices in the car to keep you from getting hurt in a collision than put in devices that keep the car from getting wrecked in the first place. This is technology being held back by a flaw of economic policy. I admit that pure socialism is worse about this than capitalism, but it's still a problem.

No corporation can hold on to such technology for too long, though... sooner or later, some upstart will see turbine/electric cars as a fantastic path to riches, and will start producing them small-scale at first, until the demand opens avenues for expansion, and, eventual global domination (until some other upstart steals his idea and decides to compete, or the major auto companies jump into the market).

The US government has long been overfond of the auto industry (see massive corporate welfare during the 80's when the Japanese were deservedly kicking their complacent asses; the withholding of air bag technology for 20 years in a deal with Liz Dole, in her capacity as head of the Department of Transportation, in order to get their support to force her pet project of mandatory seat belt use through; etc.) and I would imagine that part of the problem lies with them. I would think that the Department of Energy would be sponsoring this kind of research, so we wouldn't have to rely on the corporations on this one. But that would mean the government was serving the people, and I'm not naive enough to believe that. Even the ones who are serving the people get all worried over the number of jobs that could be lost to hybrid cars. Just like they were worried over NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement for the non-locals. The panic was that all manufacturing jobs were going to hop over to Mexico, and its success can be seen as a triumph of open markets)... let's see, what are the unemployment numbers now?

In the '80s, while 'the Japanese were deservedly kicking their complacent asses' GM was actually making record profits and at the same time laid off tens of thousands of workers. They kept the UAW off their back by bashing the Japanese and blaming import car buyers. I personally far prefer my '83 RX-7 to my '81 Camaro. The engineering and build quality beat the Camaro hands down (and straight-line performance is near equal). GM has since had numerous labor problems (the plant here goes on strike every other year or so) while the Japanese plants in the US are known for their efficiency and good labor relations. There is one main difference: GM is geared towards making profits for the shareholders, while the Japanese are geared towards making profits for everyone in the company and sharing it with the shareholders. As a result the workers are happier. The Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tennessee is the most efficient automobile plant in North America. Their annual turn-over rate is about 1% compared with about 30% in GM plants. Their absenteeism is under 5% while GM is closer to 15% (these numbers may be a little off, it's been a while since I've heard them). The UAW has tried to unionize the Smyrna plant three times and failed each time because the workers are happy with things the way they are. Nissan receives about 1000 applications for every job opening at the plant. Now Honda and BMW are gunning for Nissan's spot at number one. They treat their workers similarly. As a side note, unions would not be necessary if companies treated their workers fairly. Instead of hiring union busters companies would do well to try to figure out what they're doing wrong.

About airbags, I don't think they've been around that long, Liz Dole would have had a hard time regulating what a German company (M-Benz) does in Europe (there's enough market they would have done it). Having worked with airbags, I'm glad they didn't come out much sooner than they did, they are nicely engineered, do their job well, and the manufacturers are scared enough of litigation to do the job right.

(I know we're getting off the main subject of socialism, but darn this conversation is fun!)

General Motors was still making more money than any other company, which is why they were the top of the Fortune 500. However, they were losing drastically more than they were making, which is why they were closing plants, making massive layoffs, etc. Ford was doing a bit better, since they weren't as overextended as GM. Chrysler went damned near bankrupt, which is why Iacocca earned demigod status in the business world for saving it. But the real savior was the taxpayers, since the government made massive welfare payments to the Big 3, to keep them afloat while they relearned how to make cars. The simple fact is that free market forces took over when the Big 3 started producing garbage. An upstart entered the market (in this case an entire country), and the people saw that it was a better product, so they bought it. Nowadays, the US manufacturers are churning out a comparable product, so the emergency is over, but you can bet GM isn't going to pay back my money. I bought a GM anyway, because it's a good car. But its engine is built by Mitsubishi.

Air bag technology has been around since the late 60's or early 70's. Manufacturers didn't want to have to start installing them because they were costly. So, in order for her promise to squash anything about mandatory air bags, the automakers undertook seat belt research to help her push through her (unconstitutional) mandatory seat belt use law. And she couldn't regulate what Benz does in Germany, true. But once they get shipped over here, they have to meet US standards. If it was a mandatory standard to have installed air bags, they would have to comply, or lose the market.

US companies are beginning to learn the lesson of taking care of your employees, and the Japanese triumph over American automobiles in the 80's is what taught that lesson. Now they're finding that happy, well-trained employees are more important to the organization than anything else. We've become a resource, and supply and demand principles mean that the fewer of us there are, the more they have to pay us. And they realize that if they bend over backwards to keep us, they don't have to retrain our replacements every 2 years. Another triumph of the free market economy... when left to their own devices, people will solve their own problems better than governments can.

I don't see mandatory seat belts as being unconstitutional. Seat belts are necessary to keep the driver in place in a vehicle. There have been cases where drivers have been thrown free and the car then rolled into another car's path. Who's at fault? Also if you die because you didn't wear a seatbelt you cost the government money and additionally are no longer a taxpayer. The whole idea of law is to save us from ourselves and others. If you rewire your house you must have a licensed electrician look it over before you hook it up, that's for the protection of yourself and your property. If a law requiring seatbelts usage is unconstitutional why aren't laws banning suicide unconstitutional?

Mercedes-Benz could have marketed Europe-only airbag vehicles. Many manufacturers have differing models sold in many countries on similar platforms. Until the US got rid of its bumper tests a few years back many european cars got different bumpers just for our market.

"Another triumph of the free market economy... when left to their own devices, people will solve their own problems better than governments can." Yes, but government is a catalyst that helps it happen faster and tries to protect us from outside problems at the same time. They are inefficient but necessary.

We've had seatbelt laws for a long time and the adverts now promote the idea of wearing them in the back of the car - even though it is illegal not to.

We have a very scary advert which says, "This woman will be killed by her son who will sit down again." You then watch the car crash, the teenager in the back seat fly forward into the back of his mother's head and slump back into his seat with facial injuries.

This seatbelt issue is one of the more extreme Libertarian (I think, by my earlier statements, that I've already removed all doubt as to my personal leanings, so no reason not to bring it to the fore ) platforms that I *do* agree with. The argument goes like this:

An auto accident is exactly that... an accident. You can't plan for it, and you can't predict it. People generally *tend* to get into certain types of accidents more frequently than others, and that type *generally* has a much better chance when strapped in. However, there are accidents on record where seat belts were the direct cause of death, when vehicle gets rolled, for instance, and the seatbelt becomes stuck, strangling the victim. There are also accidents where lack of a seatbelt has saved someone's life, when they get thrown relatively harmlessly from the vehicle, to stand aside and watch it explode, watch the interior get crushed, watch it roll into a deep ravine, or sink rapidly into a lake. These accidents are statistically rare, but they do occur. By ordering those survivors to wear a seatbelt, Congress is, in effect, legislating their lives away. The Constitution defends people's rights to LIFE, liberty, and property. All they can do under such circumstances is to give us the information, and allow us to choose for ourselves.

At this point, you may think I'm anti-seatbelt, but I'm not. I strap in every time. But this is a personal choice based on the available data, and the government can think they protected me if they want to.

That *costing the taxpayers money* line is one of the insidious devices the government uses to expand its authority into realms it has no business in. The US government, like any government, intends to run your entire life. They have a bit more difficult time of it, because of the checks and balances, but they're working on it, issue by issue. They simply appeal to your need for safety, or to your pocketbook, or just your good nature every time they want to take a bit of your freedom. I'd refer you to a famous quote on this sort of thing, but it seems I've posted most of the good ones already.

The Nuer in Africa were described as anarchic. There was no king or leader but there were men who were seen to be on the ball and so people tended to do what these men did. When one of these guys packed up his belongings and started to move his cattle to the high ground everyone else did likewise. The society had rules for how you dealt with an argument. Bare fists with close relatives, blunt instruments with members of your wider family circle and knives and spears with outsiders.

They were on the whole very orderly and things were generally fine.

I suppose they didn't have cars. If you follow your argument GB you would be able to say people should be free to drive on either side of the road because some people get killed when they drive on the right side of the road and I should be free to do as I wish. There are some things which make general sense and when the proof is as clear as in the seatbelt case why should emergency service personnel be made to scrape up selfish people who are happy to turn themselves into jam (jelly?) for the thrill of it?

Your statistical argument is very shaky. Deaths have dropped dramatically since seatbelt laws were introduced and most people don't die from falling down ravines or driving into lakes. As for the car bursting into flames the seat belt generally keeps the driver conscious so that they can do things for themsleves when the circumstances warrant it. Like jumping out or whatever.

Another interesting point is around speed limits. Between the wars in the UK the 30 mph speed limit for towns and cities was removed. The death rate shot up and the limit was reintroduced quite quickly. Very often the legislation is brought in because some people cannot be trusted to act in a reasonable way and will push things to the limit.

Let's not carry this argument too far...

Of course, you need traffic laws. They aren't there to take away freedom, they're there to make large, dangerous vehicles able to go at blinding speeds without destroying each other.

Libertarianism is not anarchism. Libertarianism is mostly about watching the government like a hawk, because they're going to get into things they're not allowed to. It's about restricting government power to those things we require of it, and keeping as much power as possible in the hands of the individual.

As I said, I agree with everything you said about seat belts, which is why I wear mine. And the sort of accidents that a seat belt will help you survive is vastly more common than the type it can kill you in. Legislating death is still unconstitutional.

In the US, a 45mph speed limit can be found as commonly as a 30mph speed limit in the towns, but the incidence of accidents in the city is fairly low, and the percentage of those which are fatal is extremely low. Having driven through several turnabouts in my time, I would suspect this insidious device is more to blame than speed alone.

In California, a massive campaign was begun in '96 or so to raise the speed limit on the highways from 55 to 65mph. The argument ran that the laws were instituted back in the '50's and the massive advances in automobile technology, from seat belts and airbags to ABS and superior tires, made accidents so much more avoidable and survivable as to make the old speed limit obsolete. The California Highway Patrol promised massive, grueling death scenes statewide if the law was approved. It was approved, and 4 years later we see: no statistically significant rise in highway fatalities. In fact, the numbers continue to fall.

I think you are mistake and it would be easier for you to check than me. I think your 55 MPH limit was brought in on highways because of the oil crisis at the beginning of the 70's and not as a safety measure. We have a 70 mph limit on our motorways which are built to take large amounts of traffic, travelling at speed with no obstacles.

The speed limits I was talking about in the 1920's and 30's were in towns.

I was giving you some support with the Nuer case. They regulated themsleves even as far as dealing with murder, cattle robbery and matrimony without reference to a state. It was basically a clan or tribe thing with people relating to one another by family links and responsibilities (hence the rule that you don't pull a knife on your cousin!)

Which is why, of course, I didn't try to contradict anything you said about the Nuer. However, an argument I made earlier about communes could apply to the Nuer, as well. It's a small community, and everyone's concerns are everyone else's, so anarchism will work, just as socialism will. When a community becomes absolutely huge, as in the nations, a good deal of anonymity sets in. It's easy to cause hurt to people you don't know, which is why anarchism is so dangerous. We have to carefully balance the power of the state vs the power of the individual, and that balance requires constant attention. And it is my contention that, currently in the US, the scales are tipped too heavily to the state.

In the early '70s the government tied highway construction and repair money to the 55 mph speed limit. If a state refused to lower their speed limits they would get minimal amounts of money from the federal government. The mandate was enacted because of the oil crisis.

As far as the seatbelt issue goes, yes it is government intervention. They are intervening to save stupid and ignorant people from themselves. It is a law put in place for public safety, much like OSHAs laws (opening another can of worms?) governing workplace safety. Should our government fund commercials teaching kids not to smoke? It's government trying to intervene in people's lives, but for a damn good reason.

The government is teaching kids about the dangers of smoking. That is exactly what it should be doing. They are giving out their information, but ultimately, it is still the kids' choice whether or not they'll smoke. Selling smokes to kids is a good law, too, since you don't want to make it easy for them, but if they choose to smoke, they'll get them. Same with underage drinking... every teenager has been to a beer bust at least once.

Driving drunk laws are smart, too, because someone with too much to drink can hurt innocents. And they can only test you if you give them probable cause, or in other words, you were seen to be driving like a loon. People choose to drive with more than the legal amount of alcohol in their systems all the time, but they pull it off, because they can still handle their car.

OSHA laws aren't too bad (although they are quite a bit anal retentive) because the safety of the work environment affects everyone who works there. They keep people from being forced to do things unsafely by their employers, so it gives power to the individual, so that much of it is outstanding, in my view.

However, with seat belt laws, the only person at risk is the individual. Just like with smoking, and nobody has tried to ban that yet. It has been banned in public places here in California, but that's just to prevent innocent bystanders from having to inhale. Take it outside, and you're only hurting yourself. Same with seat belts... if you choose not to wear it, you're only hurting yourself. That makes it a personal choice, and therefore one the government has no business making for you.

I see your point, but education wasn't working in the case of seatbelts. People were passing around horror stories of people killed by seatbelts and the media perpetuated it (how many TV shows can you remember where the hero had to struggle to get the person out of the burning car?). Seatbelts weren't taken seriously. I know so many people who still say "I'm teaching my kids to wear a seatbelt, but I don't wear mine 'cause I'm too uncomfortable with it on." Do you think their kids are learning? Or do you think they're gonna stop wearing theirs when they get older? My parents always wore their seatbelts and made my sister and I belt up. I can't drive without a seatbelt, I feel like I'm not in control (and I hate sliding on the seat when I go around corners).

Because education wasn't working the government stepped in and smacked everybody with a law requiring seatbelts. The only problem I have with it is when I get pulled over. You're supposed to have your license and registration ready when the cop comes up to your car, but you have to unbelt to get to your wallet. When the cop comes up he sees you don't have your seatbelt on and gripes you out (actually happened to me, but he didn't give me a ticket for it). Other than that the law doesn't affect me.

Out of curiosity I suppose you have the same view towards California's mandatory motorcycle helmet law?