Rear View Cameras - Mandatory!

[Jesda]

How about the more pressing issue of it being acceptable to allow a governing authority to force us to buy something, yet again?

One could argue that there is no requirement for you to have to buy a new car...

I understand and appreciate the point you make, but I think that whether or not such a requirement is acceptable is going to end up dependent on if the powers that be believe such cameras will have enough of a positive impact to force such technology on us. So the issue of whether or not it adds safety becomes quite relevant and part of a necessary discussion.

You've completely ignored my point. Go back to the heart of the discussion rather than the technicalities of implementation and ask yourself whether it is morally and ethically permissible for a governing authority to interfere with the choices of free people to buy or not buy the items they see fit, in the way that they see fit.

You and the rest of today's society have already jumped ahead ten steps, going immediately past the question of "should we? ought we?" diving right into "so when we do this, what will be the effect?"

Its sickening. You sicken me.

I'd make the usual slippery slope argument, but we've already slipped.

[C-Kwik]

You've completely ignored my point. Go back to the heart of the discussion rather than the technicalities of implementation and ask yourself whether it is morally and ethically permissible for a governing authority to interfere with the choices of free people to buy or not buy the items they see fit, in the way that they see fit.

I didn't ignore it. I stated quite clearly why I think that aspect of the argument is irrelevant (from a practical standpoint). Your resting your position on the argument solely on a political ideal. And while political ideals are important, in order to effect it, you still need to engage in the discussion in detail. Consider: The automobile industry is already heavily regulated. If you applied broadly this ideal that we should not be forced to buy cars with certain features, then seatbelts, minimum bumper impact requirements, headlights, emissions equipment, front airbags, etc. would be options. These are all things that our society has generally accepted because their benefits outweigh such an ideal. While you could make the argument based on your ideal, you'ld likely lose the argument badly if that was your only talking point.

Secondly, you should consider that driving is a privilege, not a right. To exercise this privilege, you agree to abide by "their rules". Noone is forcing you to drive. And buy extension, noone is forcing you to buy a new car.

You and the rest of today's society have already jumped ahead ten steps, going immediately past the question of "should we? ought we?" diving right into "so when we do this, what will be the effect?"

To answer the "should we? ought we?" questions, we need to understand its effects. I have no problem discussing the first two questions (though I don't care if it becomes a requirement or not personally), but you seek to ignore the latter. I'm saying that ultimately, they go hand in hand. That is, we weigh the benefits of a camera to the cons. The big con for you apparently being the question of whether we should allow the government to be involved. But if there are huge benefits over that by having such equipment in place, can we ignore it entirely on the premise that it goes against an ideal? I'd say as a society, we have decided/accepted that it is possible to do so. So it ends up that we have to have the discussion.