"However, thats not my problem."
"And its none of the governments damn(ed) business."
So then, here's a very realistic, theoretical situation.
Some guy runs a stop sign and plows into your car, you of course, being the constitutionalist that you are, are not wearing a seatbelt.
You get badly hurt, leaving you permanently disabled, and your car is destroyed.
Now, the individual who plowed into you, is also a devout and hard-core Constitutionalist, and not only was he not wearing a seatbelt, he also did not have insurance coverage because, people getting hurt because they were not wearing seatbelts is not his damned problem, and the government has no business requiring insurance coverage.
Your insurance is cancelled, and they refuse youm medical coverage because your failure to wear a seatbelt.
Whose courts would you appeal to in order to get money from the guy that hurt you?
After all, it's none of the government's business if you get hurt for wearing a seatbelt, so the impact falls on you, and your family should shoulder the financial burden stemming from someone else's actions.
Mind you, I don't want to shoulder my portion of the costs deriving from your accident either.
I don't want to pay for the law enforcement present at the accident, I don't want to shoulder the cost of any emergency medical attention you may have required on site, and I certainly I don't want to shoulder the cost of litigating the aftermath either.
You see, I am a constitutionalist, and your accident is not my problem.
IN your scenario LG you said the guy ran a stop sign and hit me.
He was in the wrong. I could sue to collect damages.
By the way. I was wearing a seat belt years before the nanny state got involved.
You see, I am a rational and responsible man.
Regards
J.R.