Those incapable of working,should be provided for their families and charities, or by a compassionate STATE legislature. If a state govt will not provide for the care of the indigent, they will of course starve or very nearly. Elected officials will see to it that there are provisions for the truly needy.
The problem with the cost of caring for those injured in an accident(in the case of no seat belts), or taking care of those children with parents incapable of taking care of their responsibility, is one of too much socialism, not to few laws.
It is not my responsibility to provide for children other than mine, so I can mourn the passing of those few peoples that would. I would feel sad of course, but not guilty. They can adopt their children out, put them to work(if we could change the counterproductive child labor laws), or or be so selfish(read responsible)for the deaths of their charges.
IN truth, few are in that position, and charity would take care of their needs. People that are too proud to beg, are likely not to feel guilty about begging from the govt. As a matter of fact, they see the provision of their own needs, as a governmental right.
I would be for this idea if I had confidence in the gov'ts ability to determine what is unhealthy food. Unfortunately the Gov't has told us for 40 years that fat is bad and carbs are good and the result is that America is fatter than it ever has been. They are only now beginning to realize and admit that the reverse is true, but they still haven't changed the pyramid. And it's actually the American Medical Society more than the Gov't that's at fault, since Gov't has relied on them.
In seat belts and helmets I have confidence with the Gov'ts ability to determine safety.
"Those incapable of working,should be provided for their families and charities, or by a compassionate STATE legislature"
You admit the need for a public dole, so now we are back to the everyday problem of how to determine the unwilling from the incapable. And I'm back to paying for Joe's family, unless we enforce the safety laws to protect me and Joe from Joe's stupidity.
"It is not my responsibility to provide for children other than mine, so I can mourn the passing of those few peoples that would. I would feel sad of course, but not guilty."
That contradicts the comments above about a STATE legislature taking care of them. Perhaps the best answer is to leave assistance to charities. But in fact, charities remain the assistance of last resort when gov't programs stop.
I agree with the comment that people start to see gov't entitlements as a right instead of charity. However, I don't think it's fair to leave every societal problem to the charitable minded. There is a cost to everyone if you don't deal with the problem. Therefore it's in everybody's interest to deal with the problem and everyone should pay.
And if sometimes that means society decides to curtail individual freedom and enforce safety laws, so be it. And yes, it can swing too far. Gov't has an unending appetite and seeks to be ever more intrusive to justify more and more bureaucrat jobs. There has to be a balance. And the only way I know to maintain some semblance of balance is in a republic or democracy, where a public outcry can occur if things get too far out of whack.