Posted on 02/17/2005 10:28:42 AM PST by freepatriot32
I'll bear that in mind next time I'm in town.
They're wrong because they are arbitratry and capricious.
Do you see them in schoolbuses with all those PRECIOUS little children?
And why not?
Seatbelt laws are only passed for the reason that they collect more revenue for the greedy government, who couldn't be less interested in actual safety.
But who are we to make life choices for our neighbors. For example, I would never ride a motorcycle for safety reasons, let alone ride one without a helmet. To me the risk outweighs the benefits. But others choose to ride motorcycles without helmets because to them, the perceived freedom of riding with the wind through their hair outweighs the risk of injury.
Who am I to mandate the extent to which they should value their own safety. Life is short. We should all enjoy it in our own way. Liberals seem to think that the only goal in life is to prolong it.
In that case, hopefully, they go through the open window at the pillow factory....
that is why I said it would lead to too much intervention.....but on the side, and I wouldn't argue this on FR cause of the flak, but I am of the opinion that smokers, obese people etc should pay higher premiums because risky optional behavior does effect all of us in the long run with higher costs, less production etc. I know there are other variables and others will start in with me about other lesser things.....again, this is just my opinion.
Do you see them in schoolbuses with all those PRECIOUS little children?
And why not?
Seatbelt laws are only passed for the reason that they collect more revenue for the greedy government, who couldn't be less interested in actual safety.
Seatbelts aren't a big deal in school busses because in a typical collision between a 20,000lb bus and a 3,000lb car the passengers on the bus will feel a slight jolt.
Deciding you are going to cripple yourself is not a private decision when someone else is going to have to pay your medical bills.
I agree with you. If you are a smoker or a glutton, the insurance company's have every right to charge you for it. You are free to engage in conduct, but still must face any non-goverment-imposed consequences.
The government cannot claim ownership of your body simply because it chooses to impose responsibility for your health care on the public. (Hey, we found a loophole in the 13th Amendment!) The logical extension of your argument would lead to totolitarianism. The simple solution is either not to impose these costs on the public or accept the fact that with public imposed health costs comes a need to tolerate the increased costs caused by bad personal choices (we can call this the "Liberty Tax").
OK by me. As soon as these laws are repealed, I will support this law.
Tell that to the survivors (there were some) of that schoolbus in Idaho that got T-boned by a 40,000-pound beet truck in Idaho when I was a kid.
Some "slight jolt!"
"Deciding you are going to cripple yourself is not a private decision when someone else is going to have to pay your medical bills."
Uhmmmm, I have not decided to cripple myself.
It's like the law requiring motorcyclists to wear helments. Instead of being killed outright in a motorcycle wreck, the helmet reduces it to a lifetime (at someone else's expense) in a wheelchair with a spinal injury or some such. Unforseen consequence.
Seatbelts may or may not be a good idea, examples exist both ways, but they are a terrible LAW.
So your solution to problems caused by illegal government meddling in health care is illegal government meddling in auto safety? You must be a liberal.
There's always a fluke exception if you go looking hard enough. The most common collisions between busses and passenger vehicles do not inflict serious acceleration forces on bus passengers.
Uhmmmm, I have not decided to cripple myself.
Statistically, you are almost certain to have an accident eventually and when you do you will be injured more severely without a seatbelt than with. Not wearing a seatbelt absolutely is deciding to cripple yourself, the only question is when.
The NHTSA says the average hospital bill for an unbelted motorist is 55% higher than for someone wearing a belt. That is real money and it is coming out of my insurance premiums and my tax bill.
No, I'm a realist. The government is going to meddle in healthcare, period. That isn't even on the table. So long as they are going to meddle, they ought to at least meddle effectively.
Making you wear a belt is a damn sight less meddling and intrusive than making me pay $180,000 to the four surgeons trying to put you back together all night.
Then "statistically," I'm even more certain to have an accident because I've driven over 1,200,000 miles without so much as putting a dent in a vehicle.
Seatbelt laws are not very enforceable at night, so I guess they're "daytime only" laws. (/sarc.)
"Seatbelt laws are immoral and unconstitutional because they are a pure example of government regulating behavior which does not hurt anyone but the actor."
Got to disagree with you on this one. I have witnessed very minor accidents where the driver was thrown from their position behind the wheel ( because of non-seatbelt use ) which then caused a total loss of control of their vehicle, thereby causing more accidents.
It is hard to drive your car from the passenger seat floorboard.
Acquiescence is implicit approval. It would be on the table if 30% or more of the people in the nation demanded it be on the table. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It is my right to choose.
Nanny State! Want to make sure everyone crosses the road at the light too or you won't pay for any government disability, etc?
"Bill of Safeties" LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.