posted
"Food and sunblock don't come into it. They're completely different issues."
Why? You say "It's that not doing so is provably more dangerous and harmful, and that causes a greater drain on public resources-not just private insurance premiums." so my question is where do you draw the line? Why is it okay for the government to legislate seatbelts but not every other form of danger an individual can put themselves in?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I already addressed that question, but I'll try again. The justification for legislating this matter isn't because it's dangerous, it's because it's dangerous and will then go on to cost the people more money in a very direct, clear-cut way.
Things become hazier when you start talking about sunblock and obesity. For example, people who are obese are provably likely to have a variety more health problems, and that will cost the people they share insurance with more money. For a whole lot of Americans, though, that's a private matter.
Another difference is that the time a police officer, firefighter, or paramedic is responding to a serious injury or death on the road due to lack of seatbelts, that's time they aren't spending patrolling a high-crime neighborhood, waiting in the firehouse to respond to calls, or aiding firefighters, cops, and people when they get hurt.
Anyway, as to the broader question of where the line should be drawn, it's already beginning to be drawn indirectly for things like healthcare. People who live healthier lives are, gradually, getting better deals in some case. But my personal answer as to where the line should be drawn is that government-us-should, at a minimum, incentivize behavior that lets us live and be productive and happier for a longer time, and disincentivize behavior that does the opposite.
That's one reason I don't get outraged when I hear about a city having the gall to insert itself into a McDonald's menu, for example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not wearing a seatbelt can endanger other people if you are in an accident. Anything loose - including people - can be a danger to the other people in the vehicle.
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Other than that, I do think it's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own bad decisions that only directly endangers yourself.
I could say 'I'm fairly sure that we can compromise' and say you should be perfectly allowed to go seatbelt free. Caveat being, you can make this decision for yourself on your own non-public roads on your own land.
I'm a big proponent of the whole personal responsibility thing as well. But when a person's decisions can affect a large number of other people and come packaged as the result of such an already regulated public infrastructure and service — in this case, the most notably potentially fatal one, by far — I fully support legislation to regulate those issues (this is why, mind you, I think similar attempts at using 'it's not the government's responsibility to protect you from your own bad decisions' are equally invalid when applied to other things like 'therefore I should be allowed to carry my firearm to school!'). If you could show me that you getting into an accident, while not wearing your seatbelt, will have zero effect on me, then fine. But the truth of it is that purposeful noncompliance of seatbelt laws cause much more serious injuries to people leading to more money spent on health care, higher premiums, etc.
quote:I just read his previous post with the point/counterpoint articles and I think Derek Kieper made my point much better than I did.
Really? Because he was marketing some pretty facile, adolescent personal rights dogma there. It's flawed even before we come to the universal irony part where his libertarian crusade turned him into road meat.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm just wondering if this is going to be another Rawrain special wherein you say some stuff that was just on your mind, suggest that it's valid because it's your opinion, and then go on to ignore the ample factual evidence that your opinion is wrong or suggest you were joking or something. I'm reminded vividly of your thoughts on bicycle helmets.
I was just thinking how similar gases and liquids are, and concluded in my own right they are the same thing
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a big fan of personal freedoms. I also don't mind seat belt laws. Some of it is that the road system is a public good, regulated by public standards, but mostly because driving an automobile is inherently dangerous. When we have necessary and beneficial inherently dangerous activities, like construction work, mining, air travel, etc, ad nausium, I really do not mind the government stepping in and declaring "*This* is the safe way to do it, so do it *this* way." That these standards are enforced by fines much more then jail time speaks to how wonderfully subtle our government's hand can be. You -can- break the safety rules, but not only is it stupid (unsafe), but costly (fines).
This is not our government requiring us to do stupid things with unfairly harsh punishment. This is not an issue of freedom.
You are free to:
• Not drive • Build your own roads • Live in New Hampshire • Drive a car made before 1959 • Not wear your seat belt and pay the finePosts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
• Not wear your seat belt and be willing to accept all consequences, including paying a fine, your own injury or death, and the injury or death of other(s) in your vehicle caused by your body flailing around during an accident.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I thought I already addressed that question, but I'll try again. The justification for legislating this matter isn't because it's dangerous, it's because it's dangerous and will then go on to cost the people more money in a very direct, clear-cut way.
Things become hazier when you start talking about sunblock and obesity. For example, people who are obese are provably likely to have a variety more health problems, and that will cost the people they share insurance with more money. For a whole lot of Americans, though, that's a private matter.
Another difference is that the time a police officer, firefighter, or paramedic is responding to a serious injury or death on the road due to lack of seatbelts, that's time they aren't spending patrolling a high-crime neighborhood, waiting in the firehouse to respond to calls, or aiding firefighters, cops, and people when they get hurt.
Anyway, as to the broader question of where the line should be drawn, it's already beginning to be drawn indirectly for things like healthcare. People who live healthier lives are, gradually, getting better deals in some case. But my personal answer as to where the line should be drawn is that government-us-should, at a minimum, incentivize behavior that lets us live and be productive and happier for a longer time, and disincentivize behavior that does the opposite.
That's one reason I don't get outraged when I hear about a city having the gall to insert itself into a McDonald's menu, for example.
Fair point. But I still don't see why obesity and sunblock is a hazier issue. Both can cost people more money in a direct way. Not wearing sunblock while in the sun can cause skin cancer which costs money and will take hospital time away from people that are suffering from unpreventable diseases. I can think of too many ridiculous situations that the government can legislate to save us money while infringing on our personal liberties to accept seatbelts being legislated but not everything else.
"But the truth of it is that purposeful noncompliance of seatbelt laws cause much more serious injuries to people leading to more money spent on health care, higher premiums, etc. " So the bottomline of your argument seems to be that our personal decisions can be regulated by the government if it saves other people money.
Stone_Wolf_ I'm not sure if you read any other posts in this thread because you are pretty much repeating what has been said since the beginning of it.
"• You are free to:
• Not drive • Build your own roads • Live in New Hampshire • Drive a car made before 1959 • Not wear your seat belt and pay the fine"
Sure, and I suppose I'm also free to commit murder and then go to jail for it. I guess the government can force us to do whatever it wants and we'll always be free since we can just disobey those laws and suffer the punishment.
For the record, I always wear my seatbelt Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read every single post, before I posted...I was gathering all the options into one place...two of which I suggested...
What I was suggesting wasn't simply that we are free because we can just take our lumps, but that a fine is the most gentle enforcement that a government can levy against its citizens, and if you feel that strongly about it that seat belt laws are "repressing you" then here is a list of things you can do about it.
Public safety is a legitimate place for the government's voice to be heard. The fact that the government encourages citizens to eat healthier and the use of sunscreen (Canadian and Australian Governments I found examples of, there is likely one for the U.S., but I didn't see one) speaks to the idea. That your skin and stomach are not public property is a likely reason they only encourage and not enforce.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a slightly different perspective: I know someone who's a first responder (firefighter paramedic.) She quite often, when asked, "why should I have to wear a seatbelt/helmet" responds something like this: "Because it costs the rest of us a lot of money and I find it personally gross when I have to respond to your brains splattered on the road. I have to go touch you when you're like that, to make sure you're dead. Then, we have to take the time to secure the scene, so the police can come, and do an investigation, and the insurance companies do theirs too, and then the crew that cleans human remains off the roads has to come and scrape you up, and then there's transport costs to the morgue, where they have to do an autopsy, and if you didn't have good life insurance, we might end up supporting your dependents, too. Please just do it."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm still failing to see why someone else can decide how I live, or particularly charge me for a choice that only directly effects me.
The idea that wearing a seatbelt only affects you is a fallacy -- but I think that's already been covered pretty thoroughly. Seatbelts certainly aren't the only example. In our complex society, there are very few choices don't affect others, which its why its important to weigh the benefits of any regulation against the burden it imposes and loss of liberty.
But in the case of seat belts, that analysis is a no brainer. The benefits to both the individual and the community of wearing seat belts are large and well demonstrated and the burdens are pretty minimal.
Seat belts come standard in every car made in the past 50 years so there is no additional expense. It takes less than a second of your time to buckle it. They aren't uncomfortable to wear if they are properly adjusted. In fact, you can barely feel it. Seat belts don't restrict any movement that can be safely made while driving a car. All the other common arguments against wearing a seat belt boil down to "it's safer without" and that's very simply wrong.
So why do you want the freedom to do something that may potentially cost you your life and has little to no pay back? Base jumping, rock climbing, street luge and big wave surfing at least offer an exciting an adrenaline rush and sense of accomplishment in exchange for the danger. What do you get out of not buckling up?
[ September 05, 2011, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have several relatives that are first responders, and they say that the public's interest in you wearing your seat belt go beyond just the expense of YOUR death, etc. (Warning, I have not independently verified this info - just taking their words on it.)
Apparently not wearing your seat belt really does endanger other drivers, thus the public deserves to control it just like it deserves to control speed or driving while intoxicated. Drivers who wear seat belts are more likely to remain in control of their vehicles after minor collisions, and NOT compound minor collisions into major ones.
Imagine: Driver A is driving down the freeway. Driver B does not see Driver A and accidentally cuts into his lane causing the front drivers side bumper of Driver A to hit the rear passenger side bumper of driver B. Since Driver A is wearing his seat belt he receives a seat belt burn on his neck, but is able to get his car back under control and maneuver to the shoulder of the road where he and Driver B (also wearing his seat belt) can exchange insurance and request emergency assistance if needed for whiplash, etc. They can also feel free to curse at their leisure about what this accident is going to do to their schedules and insurance rates.
Or, we could have Driver A and Driver B not wearing seat belts. The impact throws Driver A against his steering wheel where he looses consciousness, causing his car to spin out of control and hit drivers C, D & E. Meanwhile Driver B was thrown around so violently by the impact that his neck was broken, but because he lands in an unfortunate position, his car actually flips taking out driver F.
While this is a made up scenario, it seems plausible enough to me. Seat belts go far beyond personal freedom.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as made up scenarios go, add in a speeding driver, some very wet road conditions, and my car spinning out of control after hitting the wet slope of the shoulder...and you'd have my accident two years ago.
The offending driver, my passenger, and myself were all wearing seat belts and were able to get out of vehicles unassisted before alerting authorities. Since none of us was dead, I had the pleasure of cursing out the speeding motorist until the cops arrived. After giving my statement, the cops remarked how lucky we were. The initial impact was bad enough but because I remained in my seat, I was able to get us off the highway before we were hit by other motorists (including several semi-trucks who had been behind us and didn't even bother to stop after seeing the accident.)
No seat belt burns, no head trauma, just alot of items that found their way out of the backseat and unto the dashboard, and vice versa.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Drivers who wear seat belts are more likely to remain in control of their vehicles after minor collisions, and NOT compound minor collisions into major ones.
I never thought of this, and if there exists some data confirming it, it's the last coffin nail this perennial favorite argument needs.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Drivers who wear seatbelts are more likely to remain IN the vehicle (which is half the battle) and because their seatbelt should stop them from hitting the steering column, they are more likely to be able to react in ways that are helpful in the survival of others. Not just in control of the car- I recently read an account of a firefighter who was moving the family RV to storage when he was hit by a woman running a stoplight. His RV rolled and the cab split from the back- but he was almost unharmed, climbed out, and proceeded to the car- where the woman was unconscious and suffering serious injuries. He stabilized her, evaluated the child in the back seat (unharmed because of proper car seat use- the driver was his nanny), called 911, and held c-spine and monitored her until the ambulances arrived.
Had he not been wearing his seatbelt, not only might he have burdened society with the cost of his death, but hers might have been added.
There are many, many scenarios in which the ability to remain conscious through a crash saves multiple lives.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and for the Food and Lifestyle comparisons.
The cost for Seat Belt/Click-it or Ticket programs, and the personal cost of buckling up, are minor. The pay out is tremendous. We save far more in many ways then we pay out due to the program, and you will save far more than you pay out by buckling up instead of going un-belted.
Obesity is an expensive problem, but any solution that the government can impose, beyond running ads and trying to teach healthy nutrition, are well beyond the costs it would save. Sure, if we could spend 1 Billion dollars to cut the obesity rate in the US by even 10%, that would be something to consider--assuming there were no other economic costs, but anything from policing what you are allowed to eat to making corn-sweetener illegal will be far more expensive than that, and damage the economy.
See, people in the government do the math.
Which is a phrase I would like to see used more often--"The People in the Government." We are a government of the people, and by the people. The "Government" many swear needs to be removed, downsized, and dismantled are all people, doing there best to do what is right.
You may disagree with what they think is right, but don't demonize them as some non-human "Government".
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I read every single post, before I posted...I was gathering all the options into one place...two of which I suggested...
What I was suggesting wasn't simply that we are free because we can just take our lumps, but that a fine is the most gentle enforcement that a government can levy against its citizens, and if you feel that strongly about it that seat belt laws are "repressing you" then here is a list of things you can do about it.
Why are you quoting "repressing you" as if anyone used that phrase in describing seat belt laws?
quote: The cost for Seat Belt/Click-it or Ticket programs, and the personal cost of buckling up, are minor. The pay out is tremendous. We save far more in many ways then we pay out due to the program, and you will save far more than you pay out by buckling up instead of going un-belted.
Obesity is an expensive problem, but any solution that the government can impose, beyond running ads and trying to teach healthy nutrition, are well beyond the costs it would save. Sure, if we could spend 1 Billion dollars to cut the obesity rate in the US by even 10%, that would be something to consider--assuming there were no other economic costs, but anything from policing what you are allowed to eat to making corn-sweetener illegal will be far more expensive than that, and damage the economy.
If you can back all of those statements up with facts, then I accept I was wrong about my comparisons.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The comparison between driver and passenger behavior on collectively-owned, collectively-managed/maintained and...personal eating habits? That comparison?
There is no slippery slope here. We as a society get to choose the rules by which people can use our roads, in and of itself. The *reason* we make this particular choice-seatbelts-is that not wearing them is provably dangerous and stupid, and has an also proven chance of directly sucking up resources that are in limited supply, such as cops, firefighters, and EMTs. That doesn't just cost money, it can also lead directly to other people dying or suffering because cops and EMTs spent an extra hour mopping up an accident because someone didn't buckle up.
That sets aside the very real (and obvious) possibility of successive accidents if one doesn't buckle up. Now, are you going to insist that needs to be proven, the things mentioned in this post? Or are they quite straightforward and self-evident? Not wearing a seatbelt might not just kill or injure you, but your passengers, people driving near you, and might even cause harm to the people who would've had cop/firefighter/EMT support. Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: If you can back all of those statements up with facts, then I accept I was wrong about my comparisons.
I only have personal stories but really all around the entire country there have to be many cases where a seatbelt has turned a multi hundred of thousand dollar surgery into nothing worse than whiplash and belt bruise. I could give you three of those stories myself just that I know of from one county from one state, so the money we "save" can add up fast.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You may disagree with what they think is right, but don't demonize them as some non-human "Government".
I often lament the fact that American English favors the collective singular for government, as in "the government *is* working on the problem" rather than "the government *are* working on the problem," as it is often rendered in British English.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
I suppose the argument runs that obesity *also* has an economic cost and a tax on the system. However, the tangibility of that cost is far lower than that of driving without a seatbelt. What more do people want? It's natural that we address tangible costs with greater ease than intangible ones. Tangible costs often have highly tangible solutions- like a seat belt. It's all very cut and dried.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
That's right. If I die of obesity, my family won't grieve over the loss of their husband/father/son/brother. His wife and kids won't miss his income. They won't have to come up with unexpected funeral expenses. They won't struggle to put food on the table. They won't have to give up their home if they can't pay the mortgage.
posted
Obesity doesn't kill you. Particularly high levels of obesity might, but controlling for fitness and diet, moderate obesity makes you live longer. The rise in obesity in the US is not, in and of itself, a problems; the problems are indicated by the rise in obesity, not manifested in it themselves.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Why on Earth are you rolling your eyes at me? I didn't say one's hypothetical death only affected them. I said that obesity and skin cancer only have the power to kill or maim *that person*. Lack of a seatbelt, however, doesn't-and then there's the other angle of emergency services personnel being allocated to the greater injuries or death that causes. And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are.
This is pretty straightforward stuff. It's not your road, it's *our* road. That means we get to decide how it's used. In such a group decision-making setting, individuals won't always get their way. Compromise. Built into the system. Fundamentally American.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Rakeesh, that wasn't fair. I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't read your post carefully enough. My response was not intended to be a personal reply to you, but rather a reply to the "My death only affects me" argument that has come up.
I was careless, sorry.
Posts: 692 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are."
So by that logic, sunscreen could be required at public beaches?
The argument that wearing a seatbelt physically protects other people seems so weak to me. I'm having trouble picturing an accident where someone gets thrown from their seat fast enough to seriously injure someone else that a seatbelt would have prevented (without stretching my imagination too much). I read the anecdotes but those don't seem common enough to justify forcing everyone to wear one, based on possible physical injuries to others.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you read that part about people wearing safety belts being more able to stay in control of their car in case of an accident?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your application of logic is questionable if that is your outcome. Even if those parts are on a public beach, they are still your parts, where as the manner in which you drive and your ability to continue to remain in control of your car after a crash on a public road are rather a matter of public safety.
The argument for seat belts physically protecting others isn't from your flailing body, it's from your car, which you lost control of because your body is flailing around instead of fastened to your seat.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: "And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are."
So by that logic, sunscreen could be required at public beaches?
No, that logic doesn't follow. One case involves a car. You may want to go back and check your math.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gaal, I'm really beginning to think you're simply not listening because you've made up your mind. If you don't wear sunscreen at the beach, is a cop going to have to respond to a 911 call to help? An EMT, a firefighter? Once there, will their time spent hinge on whether you wore sunblock?
That aside, and also aside from your strange notion that seatbelts don't increase one's chance of remaining in control of their car in an accident (are you really suggesting that seatbelts have no real impact on that? I just want to be sure), your mention of the beach is faulty already. It is the public's beach, and we *do* have rules about its use, sunscreen not being one of them. Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
We already, as a group, have decided some things should be allowed on the beach and others not. You're already fine with that, so your objection isn't to the imposition of rules-just rules you disagree with. In which case-democracy in action. Sometimes you won't get your way. It's not a *sign* of anything.
(For the record, the reason I'm starting to think you're not listening is because everything I've said here has been mentioned already, some parts repeatedly.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
The local cops only enforces the no fires for out of towners...it is known locally that if you actually live here at the beach and a cop hassels you for a bon fire, you say you live here and they tell you to make sure to put the fire ALL the way out when done with it.
As to the illegality of nudity on the beach, sometimes I wish this wasn't the case and then I see a half ogre in a thong (male or female) and am reminded why that law exists.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A car is, potentially, a deadly weapon. (Like, if you deliberately hit/run over someone with one- it's assault with a deadly weapon in some jurisdictions, if they don't have vehicular assault.)
It just makes sense to insist that all the many, many people steering deadly weapons not be impaired when doing so, and wear something that could keep them from becoming impaired and help them maintain control should something happen to potentially damage that control.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW: take a close look at the part of your post that invited her response, and think a bit about the actual reasons why nudity laws exist.
quote:As to the illegality of nudity on the beach, sometimes I wish this wasn't the case and then I see a half ogre in a thong (male or female) and am reminded why that law exists.
posted
fugu, my comment was clearly not serious but humorous in nature. My response of taking her comment too literally is intentional and not from a lack of understanding.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
What *are* the actual reasons anti-nudity laws^1 exist and how do they (or public nudity) relate to seatbelt laws?
1) If you had asked me outside this conversation why they exist, I would have answered that due to the variety of nudity (or lack thereof) laws (or clothing laws, including veils) that exist around the world, the laws reflect local cultural attitudes toward the human body. Not sure how this would relate back to seatbelts either.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that nudity laws are the result of cultural taboos, mostly stemming from religious beliefs.
Some folks seem to think that a child or teen is harmed by seeing a naked body. Perhaps because it could encourage lustful thoughts, or because it damages their sexual purity.
I'm not sure if there are purely practical or secular reasons for the taboo. Places where nudity is common or even the standard, such as tribal societies, don't seem any worse for it.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh was poking holes in an argument that seat belt laws on public roads are like sunscreen laws at a public beach...by showing that there are laws for conduct, i.e. anti nudity laws.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, maybe I'm a bit slow here, but I'm not sure how that related. There are anti-nudity laws (or bylaws, I think, in many cases) for beaches, there are anti-nudity laws for when you're in the public (i.e. driving). How did the argument about sunscreen and seatbelts relate to nudity in either case?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:...your mention of the beach is faulty already. It is the public's beach, and we *do* have rules about its use, sunscreen not being one of them. Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
It doesn't directly relate...it's just an example Rakeesh gave of rules that apply at beaches, which means that Gaal's example of sunscreen at the beach is not valid.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant it as an example of 'we're happy to make laws for public areas already-such as beaches'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam I like the essay quite a bit and the irony that follows is uncanny, I in fact wear a seat belt, I just disagree with the law making consequences for my free choices.
Wearing a seat belt should be only mere recommendation and not a law, that's where I draw a line.
From now on ever one of you has to wear a helmet. elbow and knee pads every single time you -ride a Bike Skateboard Roller blades - or decide to Walk around outside a tree might fall on you
You're no longer allowed to place metal objects higher than your head, because you could get struck by lightning, and if you do any of these things I am going to charge you $500 for endangering yourself.
It's a slippery slope that's what it is /:
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm beginning to think you're being witty, since your reasoning is so silly and irrelevant and you actually include the words 'slippery slope' in your post. If you are, then I'll admit it's going quite over my head (and I suspect several others).
If you're not, though, it appears you've almost completely ignored most of what's been said. You decieded that it's an 'imposition on personal freedom' or something, and that's where your thinking started-and stopped. First, the law makes consequences for personal choices all the time. Second, they're not your roads. They belong to the people collectively, and that means the people get to decide how they shall be used-not every individual according to his whims that day. Third, wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you. Fourth, your comparisons to rollerblades, bikes, skateboards, etc. are irrelevant to the biggest reasons we decide people should wear seatbelts on the road in automobiles.
The fines aren't for endangering yourself. They're for potentially, and needlessly, endangering and financially harming everyone else around you. You're welcome to disagree of course, and if you do I'd be interested in hearing why. But hearing that it's just a 'free choice' and a 'slippery slope' are both simply wrong, and in the former case wrong as a question of fact.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rawrain...what are the freedoms you feel are at stake on that slippery slope...considering you do use your seat belt, that isn't your problem, it's that you feel government shouldn't infringe on personal choice (right?), so, what specifically are you worried about?
You gave several examples of what you felt would be bad laws, safety gear while biking/skating etc., but the helmet part of that is already a law (for minors) in quite a few places (13 states with no law, 15 with county laws and 22 states with state laws).
And holding metal objects above your head seems rather silly. Do you have any -real- concerns when it comes to law vs "personal choice"?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Sam I like the essay quite a bit and the irony that follows is uncanny, I in fact wear a seat belt, I just disagree with the law making consequences for my free choices.
I could demonstrate pretty clearly that what you've come up with not only ignores the issues brought up in this thread to keep some measure of validity (in a way which makes you seem very immature), but that you don't even believe it yourself.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
