Posted on 05/31/2006 9:42:50 AM PDT by from occupied ga
Virginia's secretary of transportation sent out a letter announcing the state's annual "Click It or Ticket" campaign May 22 through June 4. I responded to the secretary of transportation with my own letter that in part reads:
"Mr. Secretary: This is an example of the disgusting abuse of state power. Each of us owns himself, and it follows that we should have the liberty to take risks with our own lives but not that of others. That means it's a legitimate use of state power to mandate that cars have working brakes because if my car has poorly functioning brakes, I risk the lives of others and I have no right to do so. If I don't wear a seatbelt I risk my own life, which is well within my rights. As to your statement 'Lack of safety belt use is a growing public health issue that . . . also costs us all billions of dollars every year,' that's not a problem of liberty. It's a problem of socialism. No human should be coerced by the state to bear the medical expense, or any other expense, for his fellow man. In other words, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another is morally offensive."
My letter went on to tell the secretary that I personally wear a seatbelt each time I drive; it's a good idea. However, because something is a good idea doesn't necessarily make a case for state compulsion. The justifications used for "Click It or Ticket" easily provide the template and soften us up for other forms of government control over our lives.
For example, my weekly exercise routine consists of three days' weight training and three days' aerobic training. I think it's a good idea. Like seatbelt use, regular exercise extends lives and reduces health care costs. Here's my question to government officials and others who sanction the "Click It or Ticket" campaign: Should the government mandate daily exercise for the same reasons they cite to support mandatory seatbelt use, namely, that to do so would save lives and save billions of health care dollars?
If we accept the notion that government ought to protect us from ourselves, we're on a steep slippery slope. Obesity is a major contributor to hypertension, coronary disease and diabetes, and leads not only to many premature deaths but billions of dollars in health care costs. Should government enforce, depending on a person's height, sex and age, a daily 1,400 to 2,000-calorie intake limit? There's absolutely no dietary reason to add salt to our meals. High salt consumption can lead to high blood pressure, which can then lead to stroke, heart attack, osteoporosis and asthma. Should government outlaw adding salt to meals? While you might think that these government mandates would never happen, be advised that there are busybody groups currently pushing for government mandates on how much and what we can eat.
Government officials, if given power to control us, soon become zealots. Last year, Maryland state troopers were equipped with night vision goggles, similar to those used by our servicemen in Iraq, to catch night riders not wearing seatbelts. Maryland state troopers boasted that they bagged 44 drivers traveling unbuckled under the cover of darkness.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill, in his treatise "On Liberty," said it best: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise."
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.
"Adults" being our rulers and "Children" being us.
That's what they think, anyway:
"It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a 10-year-old child," Card said. "I know as a parent I would sacrifice all for my children." -- Andrew Card interview in Boston Globe
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/26/6080/printer
And that's why Libertarians win so many elections, they focus on the things that really matter. (/sarcasm)
Bwa ha ha! Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day (other than this awesome interview with Ted Nugent).
>>Nothing about the government makes me madder on a daily basis than seat belt laws.<<
I have a great idea for a new safety law and I even have a great slogan: Helmets, not just for motorcycles!
Nice try.
That's a good pro-drug-use anti "second prohibition" argument.
It's funny how these simple concepts can be applied to so many usurpations of God given rights.
Wether or not they are legit depends on perspective imho.
When it comes to enforcement they are legit because it is the law. Law should be enforced equally and IMHO the best way to insure their use is to incorperate technology in the car that requires their use.
Seems that would solve the entire issue eh?
You're posting this somewhat in jest, but I'm firmly convinced that within 10 years this will be a requirement in all new cars - My only hope is that I'll be dead or old age before the American totalitarian police state reaches its full extent.
That took in the muscle car era, too, with those 'nasty' pedestrian-eating bumpers--which morphed at the safety folks' insistence into the ugly and characterless 5 MPH bumper--which, in turn, broke quite a few firemen's legs popping back out while they were cutting battery cables at accident scenes.
Oh, I almost forgot, the standard transmission (manual) was standard, too.
Jeeeeez, the list goes on, no cup holders, no CD player, (no CD's!), no lighted make-up mirror, no Onstar, no car alarm, no keyless locks, no remote starters....
the horror, the horror...
I guess you have a problem with the laws that force you to do that.
Instead, you bought into the authoritarian trap.
In PA they have been running a PSA about "Click it or Ticket". One of the lines in the ad is something like "Cops write tickets because they care." I practically laughed until I cried every time I heard it.
Is a state that enforces its laws a police state?
What is the difference in your words?
In your eyes can the Rule of Law be enforced without you labeling the state a Police State? If so could you explain what you would accept as proper asto enforcement?
You can go without wearing seat belts, if you also will agree to paying all of your medical bills out of your own pocket without causing everybody else's insurance rates to go up, should you get injured. And oh by the way, no death benefits for your survivors should you get killed, why should the rest of us pay for your stupidity?
Feh, who needs laws in the first place, ANARCHY NOW!
just because you have survived doesnt mean that is always the case...my brother decided to go driving at night....was hit by another driver, was ejected out of the car and died...does that happen all the time, no...had he been wearing a seatbelt then he would have survived. it is not the govt's fault but they can enforce the laws on the books to lower such deaths that cost taxpayer money and the grief by the families and loved ones like me. so YOUR analogies are off....you are not the rule, but rather the exception
Works for me.
you sound like such a libertarian
right on...my point exactly...you just articulate it better
YES!!! Let everyone pay for their own medical bills without government forcing medical care providers to provide their services to those who have spent their money on other things. Works for me - excellent idea.
You absolutely do have the right to "drive". The right to use the roads, the right of a person to go from place to place WITHOUT GOVERNMENT PERMISSION is an ancient right uder the common law of England.
I wear mine most of the time, but I have to say, to stick it to them with their lame commercials, I almost don't want to anymore. Their Click it or Ticket campaign probably will have the OPPOSITE impact....reduce seatbelt use.
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.