[quote=Goldmarble]
And...I disagree with you. I don't believe in a nanny state. I don't believe in trying to protect everything from the smallest of chances, if it involves giving up freedom. If 20 people in a year die, and 100 get injured, because of our current example; human body flying out of a car, strikes them....you know what? That is no reason to make a . Shit happens.Secondly, is if you want to make it law because that corpse might cause injury in the extremely unlikely scenario, then we might as well ban roof-racks for cars because you can stow a couple hundred pounds up there and it can fly off in an accident and cause further harm, just the same as an ejected corpse, right?Now, again: Even if it was legal to drive a seatbelt, I still use one. It's my choice, my prerogative.
[/quote]

This is absolutely going a bit off topic, but I just wanted to point out a bit of an oversight here. The idea of a body becoming a projectile as I'd mentioned a page or two ago was more with the imagining of a person in the backseat without their belt on. You know, accident happens, the person behind you suddenly projects forward toward your seat or the back of your skull. Sure, your seat might protect you, but if a belt would protect both of you... why not make that required? And that scenario is in no way unlikely either. I'm surprised it hadn't come to mind?

Anyway, I think this would be another example of how a community could create and maintain laws. Wearing a seatbelt is clearly a good idea for all parties. Law or not, people who are educated about the benefits and risks usually choose the option that maintains their health (specifically when that option is free and available). This is a bit similar to smoking. In my state, Washington, it is against most housing policies to smoke indoors and outright illegal to smoke within 25 feet of a place of business. It looks like restriction of a personal action, sure, but there effects had on other individuals without their consent or ability to reasonably avoid such. The fact is laws are agreements between parties to compromise. Compromise means meeting in the middle, and usually also means nobody is wholly satisfied. That's why I think there's power in communal agreements on a more manageable scale. Intentional communities offer the ability to choose and fight for what laws you favour without being one among several tens or hundreds of thousands weighing in. Imagine suddenly your neighbourhood had the power to make certain things legal or illegal. Say you have a couple hundred people under this jurisdiction and everyone gets a say in such a way that does not place an individual's opinion directly to them (unless they out themselves). Suddenly, laws effect a community more directly, one person is a much more significant figure, and should an agreement not be followed the entire community is apt to notice and hold each other accountable. I do not distrust larger governments, I just think that making a law that sweeps a million people spread across hundreds of miles of land seems a bit strange when it comes to topics like smoking pot or marriage equality. Bigger topics like managing pollution and distancing ourselves from non-renewable resources are issues that support everyone and effects everyone, a bit more applicable to a larger government. 

What do you all think?