Should Government make laws regarding People's Personal Safety?

Government should not make laws regarding people's personal safety. Describe a specific situation in which government might justifiably make a law regarding people's personal safety. Discuss what you think determines when government is justified in making laws regarding people's personal safety and when it is not. In the Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers proclaimed that government must protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens. Although the trifecta of basic rights is a nebulous phrase open to interpretation, the "protection of life" could arguably mean that government has the duty to ensure people's personal safety. This would be accomplished mainly by passing laws such as seat belt regulations, vaccination requirements, etc. These types of laws necessarily involve some restriction on certain freedoms. Government, therefore, should be cognizant of interfering with the rights of its citizens and tread carefully when passing personal safety laws. Indeed, governments without a Bill of Rights and a structure providing checks and balances run the high risk of impinging on citizens' freedom. Authoritarian rulers, for instance, mandate personal safety laws that really serve to control citizens and maintain their hold on power. For example, women in Arab countries are forbidden to vote, drive, and exercise the same freedom of movement as men. These laws are supposedly intended to protect the "weaker sex" but really are designed to maintain the integrity of a patriarchal, authoritarian style of rule. While this is an extreme example, any government unchecked in its power can easily impose laws that treat certain segments of society as second class citizens. When government is held accountable to its people, it is much easier to ensure that its personal safety laws do not (unjustifiably) impinge on citizen freedom. Indeed, personal safety laws can help government maintain order in society. For instance, seat belt regulations do not only serve to protect people from fatal injuries or deaths---they have the broader purpose of mitigating the societal costs associated with accidents. These include, among others, publicly-funded ambulance/hospital care, higher insurance premiums, etc. By requiring seat belt use, the government decreases chances of fatalities and therefore saves tax payers money. Even when government is limited in its law-making functions, it still is able to pass personal safety laws that arguably impinge on citizen freedom in an unjustified manner. For example, airport regulations requiring a full-body scan of passengers has been subject to much debate. The government argues that it is taking such measures to prevent another 9/11-type disaster while freedom advocates believe the new rules violate citizens' right to their personal space. Furthermore, many parents refuse to have their children vaccinated due to health concerns and cannot enter public school as a result. There are a multitude of issues that lie on the "gray" scale of the freedom versus personal safety debate. Indeed, these discussions are essential to keeping government in check with regard to its ability to pass laws. Granted, if people experienced unfettered freedom, the government would not be able to function in a significant way. Order in society necessarily involves citizens following rules that restrict their freedoms. However, it is important for governments to be held accountable by its citizens and also encounter limitations in its ability to pass laws (i.e., checks and balances, Bill of Rights). Without such structures, it would betoo easy for governments to control citizens to the detriment of their basic rights and freedoms.