Freed to live through the death of another.

If Canada was Consistent…

If our country were consistent there would be no law about seatbelts. Instead we would proudly acknowledge that as defenders of human rights, we believe in a ‘driver’s right to choose.’ Why should life be valued more than the freedom of choice? Why should the governing authorities get to determine what the driver does with their own body?

In fact, we could take it even further. If we were really, truly consistent, we should argue that passengers in a car have no rights to seatbelts — unless, of course, the driver chooses to let them use one. After all, the passengers are not their own entities, but merely ‘attachments’ to the driver’s automobile. We should not hinder the driver’s freedom for the sake of the life of the passengers.

Really, the passenger should forfeit human rights. After all, they couldn’t live apart from the driver’s protection of them. If the driver chooses to, he or she can end the lives of the passengers at any moment (cliffs, posts, and oncoming traffic could all do the trick).

This should especially apply in the case of passengers who are unwanted, unliked, and make life more difficult for the driver. Of course, the driver could have just never picked up any passengers… but why would we talk about responsibility? We’re far too busy talking about rights to talk about responsibility.

1 Comment

  1. Dave

    I was thinking along the same lines earlier this week…. I mean, why have suicide prevention initiatives, if we have the freedom and right to do whatever we want to ourselves?

© 2022 Julian Freeman

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑