[Chemist_Geek]

And, in spite of what the state legislatures have done, the answer to the second question, in America, is clear. The answer is, “No.”

Really? Unless we're discussing one's very own private road, then the State may and must set limits and conditions upon the use of roads.

I-can-do-whatever-I-want-to-Neener-Neener Bump!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Unless we're discussing one's very own private road, then the State may and must set limits and conditions upon the use of roads.

You'd love NY State then. The Karl Marx brigade are usually the first in the country to find new rules to save us from ourselves. In fact we were the first ones to start seat belt laws. After all, the insurance companies donate lots of money to those campaign coffers, they have a right to be heard.

[Eagle Eye]

Really? Unless we're discussing one's very own private road, then the State may and must set limits and conditions upon the use of roads.

Just like with private citizens, just because one has the right to power to do something doens't mean that they should do it.

I have the right to spend all my money on payday. Should I?

The government may enact specific seatbelt, cell phone, eating, drinking, and farding rules. Should they?

Just because they can doesn't mean they should.

[Adder]

"and must set limits"? Oh really? I agree with the "may" but why "must"? The "state" is not a monlithic entity, it is the people. [We're talking theory here, not reality]. So in your opinion, how does wearing a seat belt relate to the use of the roads? It has nothing to do with road safety: doesn't regulate speed, doesn't stop reckless endangerment of others. All it does is allow the state into the vehicle. The law changes the relationship with the state from regulating the driver's behavior vis a vis other drivers; instead it becomes paternalistic insisting that only the state can determine what is acceptable. That does not apply to other situations in driving that I can think of.