I'm not "Pissed Off", but I'm a bit flummoxed.
Please explain this rant to me Uncle Tez.
"Simple question, does a mandatory helmet law comply with the Non Aggression Priciple? It does not, as enforcement would involve the initiation of force against a person who has harmed nobody. The end result of enforcement is caging or killing violators (i.e. if the violator attempts to continue on his was while harming no person or property). Remember every time you think "they should make a law ...", the only tool government has to enforce any law is violence.
Is forcing people to wear helmets worth killing for? Absolutely not. All arguments regarding costs to others are irrelevant. Without the welfare state (the initiation of force) there would be no involuntary costs on others. If you have an argument against medical and ongoing costs in a wreck of a rider with no helmet, then you really have an argument against the welfare state and regulation of the medical sector.
With all that being said, I wear a full face all the time every time. I believe that choice has saved my life twice now. I strongly encourage everyone to wear a full face but would never threaten or use violence to get them to do so under duress."
They must have really good drugs over there .
Cheers,
Brian