Everyone except a race car driver - automatically hits the brakes in that circumstance. And your other accident turns out not to have been at the speed or head on as you described. Neither would have triggered an airbag. Try again.
I did not define my accident as head on. Try again yourself. Certainly I hit the brakes, in my collision with the deer and they had little time to slow the car.
As for moving to Somalia its not bullshite. Somalia is the quintessential example of what society becomes when it implements the "liberties" you wish to see.
No, it is not. Probably there is no modern nation that has that notion of liberty. America circa, oh, 1927 probably fits my general idea of the role of government, but I'd stipulate my ideal government lacks the sanctioned racism and sexism of that era. It is possible to desire a government that is less catholic than the one we have today, without desiring a complete breakdown of all social infrastructure as we see in Somalia.
Because the example you would need to point at perhaps is Canada... except that moving to Canada is an option that is currently an economic step up and their liberties are hardly as constrained as you pretend.
Pretend? I make no pretense. Canada puts restrictions on liberty that do not exist in the United States today, and were even less prevalent in the history of the U.S. But Canada has not pursued your restrictions, as yet, to their ultimate end. If Somalia is your example of a "free" society, then I'll stick with my example of one you should enjoy -- such as Singapore, or China (or, since we seem to be able to break the time barrier here, Soviet Russia).
There is nothing "simple" about this at all. And your contention that it is, is precisely the problem. In the USA we have a structure of how such behaviour can and cannot be dealt with.
Not according to you. You say that essentiallly any behavior that could increase the risks in the insurance pool can be barred by government. It makes no legal or philosophical difference if the behavior is a seat belt, or sodomy, or an extra slice of bacon. All can be shown to be "risky" compared to some level of non-risky behavior.
We cannot just "outlaw it" (though even the Conservative Scalia and Alito have sought to do this in some drugs)
we CAN regulate its commerce
Puh-lease. How do you regulate commerce in sodomy, Degs? because this risky behavior would impact insurance rates, and insurance is "commerce" clearly this would be a regulable behavior in Degsland.
As for your bullet list, you write of things as they are today, and that isn't what I was doing. I was following your reasoning "if it impacts the experience pool, it can be regulated."
So smoking? Isn't outlawed. but you have no right to impose second hand smoke on anyone
True today -- but today is by no means permanent. Under the rubic you've constructed there is no reason there couldn't be an outright ban, as the risky behavior would clearly have an impact on insurance rates.
Sodomy - the law banning it has been overturned
Again, true today -- but it was merely one law, (a set of laws per state, to be more accurate) and it was based not on the risks inherent in the behavior, but on a specific set of morals. When elements of risk become the modulator as you say they are, then there's no reason at all that this risky behavior is different from any other. It's a risky behavior that can spread a deadly disease -- why wouldn't, and why couldn't', future regulators step in, in the name of "the pool." Don't look at me, Degs -- it's your argument.
Fatty foods? - commerce regulated.
And yet it isn't commerce, outside the "commons" that we're discussing here. Fatty foods can be sold as a safe substance, because they are safe, in moderation. What you have constructed is an area where the individual's behavior -- the excess consumption of fatty foods -- could be regulated based on its impact on "the pool." You thereby extend the concept of commons into behaviors that have traditionally been private and individual in nature, and yet you fail to acknowledge this is what you're doing.
Seat belts? - regulated in PUBLIC VENUES - but you can drive on your own property without one.
The issue is not whether it is in a public venue. The issue is the regulation of an individual behavior in the name of "the pool." You think this regulation is OK, even though the only impact it has on "the pool" is the acknowledged impact on the cost of insurance -- but almost any risk can be shown to arrive at a measurable insurance impact. It wouldn't matter to the insurance company if the car was being driven on a public road or not.
And yes, because we understand the consequences of individual acts more comprehensively today than in the past, we recognize more and more that the answer is rarely "simple".
And so, according to you, we have no individual freedom.