Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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.
One of these "click or ticket"/sobriety road blocks was set up in my county last Wednesday. It was set up around 5om a few miles south of where I was tending bar and bingo was about to start and so many folks passed through it and commented on it when they arrived. One of my regular Wednesday night customers showed up about 8 to wait for his wife to finish with bingo and commented that there were an awful lot of Mexicans along the side of the road and a lot of cars being put up on rollbacks.........
Well, the safety features made the cars more expensive, so now the insurance costs more.
Good question - that deserves an answer. A state that uses its police powers to enforce silly laws that empower, as Williams says, "Government officials, if given power to control us, soon become zealots" - is a police state by my standards
A secondary definition is where the police follow arbitrary guidelines in deciding whom to harass and whom to kill - that is outside the scope of this thread, but read the sierra times wack and stack column.
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 can do amazing things with a chart, a sextant, a compass, and a good chronometer...
"actually i am a man"
I don't believe you.
No way would a conservative male take this position. This is strictly liberal male territory. I know. I live in Seattle.
"actually i am a man"
I don't believe you.
No way would a conservative male take this position. This is strictly liberal male territory. I know. I live in Seattle.
A state that ignores Constitutional restraints on its powers is well on its way to becoming a police state.
Secondary - They're only getting caught because they weren't wearing seat belts - I was referring to nothing being done about their being here illegally.
wow...talk about off topic...please oh please mister man...please use the spell checker...it the words of cartman..."i do what i want!"
It seems clear. Unless I misunderstood your post, you are making the case that these laws are acceptable because the government is forcing you to subsidize the bad decisions made by others.
In which case, I guess you have a problem with the laws that force you to do that.
Finding these nanny state laws acceptable means you have bought into the authoritarian trap. Many here do.
The government has one legitimate area in which they are to protect me-that is by taking care of the security of our nation.Recent events would tell us they need to spend more time on that and less on these other items.
LOL, good one.
Sounds like we are on the same page. The confusion was mine.
My gf is from Texas and is deathly afraid of your troopers. I can see why after visiting last week. Thankfully, he just gave her a warning for "speeding." (She wasn't speeding; I saw the spedometer myself).
Texas cops are tyrants.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
"The legislatures pass 10 laws a year . In ten years you have been restricted 100 more times . How many laws do thet abolish in that period of time ????"
This is why ALL laws, and I do mean ALL LAWS be they federal or state, should come with an automatic sunset clause that removes the law from the books in 10 years or less.
Yes, it keeps the maggot politicians in DC busy, yes it keeps the maggot pols in the state house busy.
When they are too busy re-enacting old laws, they are too busy to make new ones.
When you have passengers in the car you are directly responsible for others well being.
your comment "depends on the laws" Is hilarious. I guess that means only laws that you yourself agree with or what??
You remaining in control of that car insures you are safe to be on the road as it petains to anyone else that is on the roads.
I asked you a question and I notice you refuse to answer.
Your argument is that they should not be able to make such a law. You fail to adress what I asked you. It IS the law so is it just a police state if you disagree with the law? Sure seems so.
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.